Older worked forced to retire
New Jersey has an extremely broad anti-discrimination law, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). The LAD became even broader last Tuesday, October 5, 2021, when Governor Phil Murphy signed into law a new amendment that increases the statute’s protections against age discrimination by removing several loop holes and exceptions.
More specifically, the amendment makes four changes to the LAD:
Earlier this month, in Pritchett v. State, the New Jersey Supreme Court confirmed that the state of New Jersey and municipalities remain subject to punitive damages under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).
Shelley Pritchett worked for the State of New Jersey as a Senior Corrections Officer at the Juvenile Justice Center (“JJC”). In 2011, Officer Pritchett suffered back, knee and neck injuries when she broke up a fight between two inmates. She went on a workers’ compensation leave as a result. Her doctor subsequently diagnosed her with multiple sclerosis. As a result, she sought to extend her medical leave by approximately 4 ½ months. However, the JJC denied her request, and instead offered to extend her leave by only about a month and told her that if she was not medically cleared to return to work by then she would have to resign.
Officer Pritchett was unable to return to work within the additional time JJC had granted. However, she told the JJC she did not want to resign. In response, JJC told her that if she did not resign by the end of the week, it would initiate disciplinary proceedings to fire her, and she would lose her pension. In response, Officer Pritchett applied for a disability retirement.
A recent decision from the District of New Jersey concludes that, when an employer claims it fired an employee as part of a corporate restructuring, but has no documents to prove there was a restructuring, can be enough to prove age discrimination in violation of New Jersey law.
In 2014, Talbird Reeves Sams began working for Pinnacle Treatment Centers, Inc. His job was to find new locations for new facilities, and to help Pinnacle open those facilities.
In 2016, Pinnacle’s Chief Development Officer, Robert O’Sullivan, told Mr. Sams that his position was being eliminated due to “corporate restructuring” and his employment was being terminated as a result. At that time, Mr. Sams was 58 years old.
Yesterday, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that two racially offensive slurs uttered by a supervisor can be enough to create a hostile work environment in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).
Armando Rios, Jr. is Hispanic. He worked for Meda Pharmaceutical, Inc. as its Director of Brand Marketing. His immediate supervisor, Tina Cheng-Avery, was Meda’s Senior Director of Commercial Operations.
Mr. Rios claims Ms. Cheng-Avery made two racial slurs toward him. First, he claims that when he was discussing his plans to purchase a new house, Ms. Cheng-Avery said “it must be hard for a Spi*k to have to get FHA loans.” Second, he claims that the following month, when he and Ms. Cheng-Avery were casting actresses for a television commercial for one of Meda’s products, Ms. Cheng-Avery said one of the actress auditioning “would work … if she didn’t look too Spi*ky.” Ms. Cheng-Avery denies she made either of those comments.
New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog