New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

DCR Revises Regulation Based on Jonathan Nirenberg’s Suggestion

December 3, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights recently modified its proposed regulation regarding disparate impact claims based on a comment that I submitted earlier this year.

On June 3, 2024 the DCR initially proposed the new regulation to addresses disparate impact claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). A disparate impact claims is when a practice or policy that appears to be neutral on its face has a disproportionate negative impact on people in a particular legally-protected class, such as based on their age, race, national origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

The DCR’s proposed regulation would make it clear that the LAD prohibits practices and policies that have a disparate impact on members of a legally protected class even if it was not intended to be discriminatory. In other words, it is form of unlawful discrimination.

Condominiums Can be Required to Allow Emotional Support Animal as Reasonable Accommodation for Resident’s Disability

April 9, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) can require a condominium association to allow a resident to keep an emotional support dog as an accommodation for a disability even if the dog exceeds the association’s weight limit for pets.

K.P. and B.F. live at Players Place II, a condominium complex in New Jersey. Players Place II’s rules and regulations allow only pets under 30 pounds to live in its apartments.

The Association filed a lawsuit against K.P., claiming he violated its rules and regulations. K.P. and B.F. filed a counterclaim alleging the Association violated the LAD by denying B.F. a reasonable accommodation for her disabilities.

Court Analyzes Prospective Tenant’s Sexual Harassment Claim

December 12, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent ruling, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recognized that the same basic legal principles that apply to sexual harassment claims in employment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) also apply to sexual harassment claims involving housing discrimination under the LAD. The LAD is a law that prohibits discrimination in the context of both employment and housing.

In November 2019, Sira Traore attempted to lease an apartment for her family and financial assistance from Fairview Homes Preservation, L.P. (“Fairview). She met with Ricardo Mendoza, who was an employee of Related Management Company, L.P. (“Related”), a company that manages and leases apartments on behalf of Fairview.

Ms. Traore claims that when she met with Mr. Mendoza he touched her and pressured her to go to his hotel room to have sex with him in exchange for him providing her a lease for an apartment lease and the housing assistance she was seeking. Ms. Traore did not agree to have sex with Mr. Mendoza, and claims that as a result she did not receive a lease or housing assistance. Ms. Traore recorded her conversation with Mr. Mendoza using her cell phone.

Catholic School Did Not Violate Law Against Discrimination by Firing Unmarried Employee When She Got Pregnant

August 16, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that religious institutions can fire an employee for failing to follow the tenets of their religions, such as a Catholic school firing an employee because she had premarital sex.

Victoria Crisitello worked for the St. Theresa School as an art teacher and toddler room caregiver. St. Theresa’s requires its employees, including Ms. Crisitello, to sign employment agreements that require them to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. For example, they had to agree to follow the Policies on Professional and Ministerial Conduct adopted by the Archdiocese of Newark.

Among other things, those Policies forbid engaging in “[a]dultery, flagrant promiscuity or illicit co-habitation.” Similarly, the Roman Catholic Church prohibits sex outside of marriage, which the Church considers to be a sin.

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Reinstated by New Jersey Appellate Court

August 3, 2021 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

One potential defense an employer has in a sexual harassment case is that the employee unreasonably failed to make use of the employer’s anti-harassment policy. A recent New Jersey Appellate Division opinion highlights the fact that this defense does not apply if the harassment led to an adverse employment action, such as the employee being fired, demoted, or suspended without pay.

Ramona McBride worked as a sales trainee for a car dealership, Foulke Management Corp., dba Atlantic Jeep Chrysler Fiat. She alleges her immediate supervisor, sales manager Jack Dellafave, made sexual advances toward her and fired her because she rejected his advances.

The harassment started with Mr. Dellafave sending Ms. McBride text messages in which he told her that he was “attracted” to her, invited her to his hotel room, and offered to pay for her cab ride to his hotel. Ms. McBride declined each of those offers.

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Explained by New Jersey Supreme Court

April 30, 2021 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) for the first time. The PWFA is an amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) that prohibits pregnancy discrimination.

Kathleen Delanoy is a police officer. She filed a lawsuit in which she alleged her employer, the Township of Ocean, discriminated against her because she was pregnant. However, the trial court dismissed her case on a motion for summary judgment.

As discussed in my previous article, Appellate Court Recognizes Employers Must Accommodate Pregnancy, the Appellate Division subsequently reversed that ruling. Ocean Township asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to review that decision.

Arbitration Agreements Do Not Need to Designate Rules or Forum

September 16, 2020 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that, to be enforceable, an arbitration agreement does not necessarily have to set forth the rules or procedures that will apply in arbitration or to select a forum for the arbitration.

The case involved Marilyn Flanzman, who worked for Jenny Craig as a weight maintenance counselor in Paramus, New Jersey, for almost 27 years. In 2011, she signed an Arbitration Agreement with Jenny Craig. That agreement states that all disputes, including discrimination claims, must be resolved through “final and binding arbitration” rather than a jury or other civil trial.

In February 2017, Jenny Craig reduced Ms. Flanzman from thirty-five hours per week to nineteen hours per week. At the time, Ms. Flanzman was 82 years old. In April 2017, Jenny Craig further reduced Ms. Flanzman’s hours, to approximately thirteen hours per week. In June 2017, the company reduced her to only three hours per week. When Ms. Flanzman complained to her supervisors, they told her: “That is just the way it is,” and that if she did not accept her new schedule she would be fired. Ms. Flanzman, who apparently was the only employee in Paramus whose hours were reduced so dramatically, rejected the three-hour-per-week schedule.

New Jersey Law Prohibits Discrimination for Prescribed Off-Duty Medical Marijuana Use

March 10, 2020 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Today, in Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that employers cannot discriminate against employees for using prescribed medical marijuana while off-duty. Rather, doing so constitutes disability discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

The New Jersey Supreme Court affirms a March 17, 2019 Appellate Division opinion. The Supreme Court’s opinion makes it clear that the Compassionate Use Act does not require employers to accommodate the use of medical marijuana in the workplace. It also noted that the Compassionate Use Act does not permit anyone to operate or control any “vehicle, aircraft, railroad train, stationary heavy equipment or vessel while under the influence of marijuana.” But the Supreme Court’s opinion holds that the LAD prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for using prescribed medical marijuana outside of work.

For more information about the case, please see my previous article: New Jersey Employers Can’t Discriminate for Medical Marijuana Use Outside of Work.

Rumors Female Employee Had Affair with Male Superior Can be Sexual Harassment

December 27, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent opinion by New Jersey’s Appellate Division recognizes that false rumors of a sexual relationship between a female employee and a male superior can create a legally actionable hostile work environment.

Jennifer Schiavone is a senior corrections officer for the New Jersey Department of Corrections (“DOC”). In 2013, the DOC assigned Officer Schiavone to work in the Central Control Unit (“Central Control”), which is a desirable job because it does not involve direct contact with inmates.

Shortly after the DOC transferred Officer Schiavone to Central Control, rumors began to spread that she was having an extra-marital affair with a high-level DOC official, “S.D.” Even though Officer Schiavone denied that she was having an affair with S.D., their supposed relationship became the subject of nearly daily conversation at work. For example, on one occasion Officer Julie Houseworth asked Officer Schiavone if she planned to “blow” S.D. Another time, Lieutenant Zsuzsanna Rogoshewski said: “That’s her over there, that’s who’s sleeping with the [high-ranking official],” referring to Officer Schiavone and S.D.

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.