New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") Tag Archives

Gerber Must Bring Witness to New Jersey to Testify in Discrimination Lawsuit

January 8, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division affirms a trial court’s order requiring Gerber Products Company to bring a witness from Switzerland to New Jersey, at Gerber’s expense, to testify at a deposition in a discrimination lawsuit. A deposition is a formal interview under oath used to obtain testimony from witnesses in lawsuits.

Denise Willson is a former Vice President of Medical Sales North America for Nestlé Infant Nutrition. Ms. Willson sued Gerber Products Company, Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc., Nestlé Holdings, Inc., and Gerber’s President and CEO, William Partyka, alleging they discriminated against her because of her age and gender. More specifically, she claims they fostered a “boys club” culture, paid her less than her younger male peers, denied her a promotion to the position of general manager, and ultimately fired her in retaliation for her complaints about the discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

As part of her lawsuit, Ms. Willson alleges she spoke to Mr. Partyka’s supervisor, Alexandre Costa, about the retaliatory termination, gender discrimination and Gerber’s failure to promote her. When Ms. Willson’s lawyers sought to take Mr. Costa’s deposition, the defendants objected. They argued that Mr. Costa lives in Switzerland, claims his meeting with Ms. Wilsson was about sales rather than her allegations of discrimination and retaliation, denies he was involved in the decision to terminate her employment or has any other information pertinent to her case, and that requiring him to come to New Jersey for his deposition supposedly would “create a tremendous burden on [his] business.” The defendants also argued that neither Mr. Costa nor his employer, Nestlé Enterprises S.A., is a party to the lawsuit.

New Jersey Court Analyzes Time Off as Reasonable Accommodation for Disability

October 11, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), time off can be a reasonable accommodation for a disability as long as the time off sought is reasonable. A recent decision from the District of New Jersey provides a good example of how Courts analyze this issue at the early stage of a case, as well as a dispute about the employee’s ownership interest in the business.

Michaela Wark worked for J5 Consulting, LLC as a senior consultant in New Jersey. In June 2020, Michael Johnson, who is the Chief Executive Officer and an owner of J5, told Ms. Wark that he was promoting her to a Partner of J5 and making her a 5% owner of the company.

Mr. Johnson provided Ms. Wark a letter confirming her promotion and 5% ownership, which states that she would lose her ownership rights if she was “fired for gross negligence or misconduct.” The letter also say Ms. Wark “must be employed by the company six months prior to sale for the rights of ownership to apply.”

Sexual Assault of Student Can be Sexual Harassment in Violation of New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

September 13, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a sexual assault against a student can constitute sexual harassment in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

In addition to prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, the LAD also prohibits it in places of public accommodation, including public schools and school busses. Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination that occurs because of the victim’s sex.

The case involved an individual identified only by her initials, C.V., who was a prekindergarten student in the Waterford Township School District. C.V. was the victim of repeated sexual assaults by her bus aide, Alfred Dean. Mr. Dean ultimately plead guilty to first-degree aggravated sexual assault, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

When Are Employers Liable for Harassment Toward Customers?

December 12, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A new ruling from the Appellate Division addresses when an employer can be liable for unlawful harassment by one of its employees toward a customer or patron.

The case was brought by Darien Cooper, who is gay. Mr. Cooper received a massage at Rogo Brothers, Inc., which does business under the name Elements Massage (“Elements”). The masseuse, Justine Middleton, asked Mr. Cooper about a tattoo on his arm. During their ensuing conversation, Ms. Middleton told Mr. Cooper that she is Christian. When Mr. Cooper later referred to his boyfriend, Ms. Middleton made demeaning and discriminatory comments about homosexuality. For example, she told Mr. Cooper that gays “do not follow God’s design,” compared being gay with pedophilia, and implied she believes being gay is a choice. Mr. Cooper found these comments humiliating.

Mr. Cooper sued Elements, alleging it engaged in sexual orientation discrimination against him in a “place of public accommodation,” in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). In addition to prohibiting workplace discrimination, the LAD also prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, such as a “retail shop, store, establishment, or concession dealing with goods or services of any kind.” As a result, places like Elements cannot discriminate against their customers based on their sexual orientation (or, for that matter, based on their race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, sex, gender identity or expression, disability or nationality).

Non-Disparagement Clauses Do Not Violate New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

June 6, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last week, in Savage v. Township of Neptune, the Appellate Division ruled that a 2019 amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) does not prohibit parties from entering into non-disparagement clauses.

The Appellate Division’s opinion involved Christine Savage, a Sergeant for the Township of Neptune Police Department. Sgt. Savage brought an employment discrimination case against Neptune, Police Director Michael J. Bascom, Police Chief James M. Hunt, in which she alleged they engaged in sexual discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the LAD, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”), and the free speech provision of the New Jersey Constitution.

Sgt. Savage eventually settled her case. The settlement agreement included a mutual non-disparagement provision which prevented the parties from making any statements “regarding the past behavior of the parties, which statements would tend to disparage or impugn the reputation of any party.”

When Can an Employer Require a Fitness for Duty Exam?

May 16, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

As a New Jersey employment lawyer, I have had numerous clients tell me their employer has asked or required them to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination. However, anti-discrimination laws limit when an employer has the right to send an employee to a medical exam.

Protection Under Anti-Discrimination Laws

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) both prohibit employers from sending employees for a fitness-for-duty exam unless the exam is “job-related” and “consistent with business necessity.”

Requiring Employee to Seek Another Job is an Adverse Employment Action

March 13, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent case recognizes that an employer’s decision to remove an employee from her job and give her an opportunity to search for another position within the company is an adverse employment action. In other words, if it is done for a discriminatory reason, doing so can violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

Kathleen Fowler, who has epilepsy and is a cancer survivor, worked for AT&T for 30 years and is over 60 years old. In December 2015, AT&T announced a plan to reduce the Technology Planning and Engineering business unit for which Ms. Fowler worked by eliminating numerous positions. AT&T placed the employees impacted by this reduction in force on “surplus status,” meaning they were given the choice to accept a severance package and leave the company, or remain employed for 60 days to search for another job within AT&T. If an employee on surplus status was not offered another position within those 60 days, then she would receive the severance benefits.

Ms. Fowler elected to go onto surplus status. During that period, she was offered two positions, one in New Jersey and the other in Texas. Even though she was better qualified for the position in Texas, Ms. Fowler accepted the job as a senior system engineer because it was in New Jersey and she did not want to interrupt her cancer treatment.

Employer Too Late to Compel Arbitration in Whistleblower Lawsuit

February 9, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent employment law case, New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled that an employer had waived its right to compel arbitration by waiting 10 months before it sought to do so.

Tevin Welcome worked as a van driver for Huffmaster, Inc. Before Huffmaster hired him, Mr. Welcome completed an online application. The application included an arbitration provision, which indicated that if he accepted a job with the company, then he would have to resolve any dispute with the company, including claims of discrimination or retaliation, through arbitration instead of in court.

When Huffmaster hired Mr. Welcome, he moved from Texas to New Jersey for the job. However, he quickly discovered that few of his coworkers and the clients who rode in the van he drove complied with New Jersey’s COVID-19 mask mandate. Mr. Welcome was particularly concerned that he could get COVID and give it to his six-year-old son who has health problems.

Employers Can be Liable for Employment Decision Tainted by Subordinate’s Discrimination

January 5, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently recognized that an employer can be held liable for discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) based on an employment decision that was influenced by a subordinate’s discriminatory animus, whether or not the subordinate intended to get the employee fired.

Michele Meade was the Township Manager for Livingston Township. She was involved in disciplining Police Chief Craig Handschuch and Police Sergeant Kenneth Hanna for their failure to alert the Livingston Community Center about training exercises being conducted in the Center’s parking lot by the Emergency Services Unit (“ESU”). As a result, when someone spotted a man wearing camouflage and carrying a rifle bag in the parking lot, the Community Center locked down three preschool classes, and the Police Department dispatched two detectives to the scene.

Following the incident, Sergeant Hanna filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Meade, claiming she violated the law by using “unreasonably loud and offensive coarse or abusive language” when she publicly addressed him about the incident, including by asking him “what kind of f—ing operation are you running here?” Sgt. Hanna filed a second criminal complaint in which he alleged Ms. Meade had “purposely com[e] into physical contact with officers and civilians in an attempt to obstruct and stop an authorized ESU training exercise.” Ms. Meade eventually was acquitted of both charges.

Court Must Reconsider Whether Sexual Harassment Victim Agreed to Arbitration

November 12, 2021 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision by New Jersey’s Appellate Division makes it clear that a court must have clear proof an employee agreed to arbitration before an employer can force an employee to arbitrate her case.

Nikki Cordero applied for a job with Fitness International, LLC, also known as LA Fitness International. A few days later, LA Fitness interviewed Ms. Cordero and offered her the position.

On Ms. Cordero’s first day of work, the Gym’s General Manager, Ryan Farley, had her electronically sign a series of documents that he said she needed to sign before she could start her training. According to Ms. Cordero, she did so without seeing what she was signing.