Employment Law Legal Updates
Attorneys in Northern and Central New Jersey
On December 2, 2010, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed an Appellate Division decision and re-instated a more than $9.1 million dollar verdict in favor of a Human Resources Director who sued her former employer for gender discrimination and retaliation. Claudia Reis submitted an amicus (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association of New Jersey, which brief was written by Ms. Reis, Jon Green, and Glen Savits. The position advocated in the brief was that the Court adopt a balancing test to determine when employees are entitled to legal protections for providing confidential company documents to their attorneys in connection with discrimination, harassment or retaliation claims. While the parties and the other organizations appearing as amicus proposed bright-line rules, the Supreme Court of New Jersey adopted a balancing test that incorporated the factors suggested by the Green, Savits & Lenzo attorneys in the amicus brief. This decision is an important one for employees across the State of New Jersey because it makes clear that employees do not necessarily lose the protections under the Law Against Discrimination for sharing certain confidential company information with their attorneys.
Restaurant Shuts 13 NJ Locations Without Warning
On Monday, November 15, 2010, the popular chain restaurant Charlie Brown’s closed 13 separate restaurant locations in New Jersey without providing notice to or otherwise warning their employees. Employers with 100 or more employees are required to provide at least 60 days’ advance notice to employees or their representatives before closing down a covered employment site or doing a covered mass layoff under the New Jersey Warn Act. Call the lawyers of Green, Savits & Lenzo if you lost your job because your employer shut down or conducted a mass layoff without providing you with any notice.
Mommy-Track Lawsuit Settled
November 8, 2010 — A former vice president for Goldman Sachs has settled her lawsuit against the Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs in which she alleged that she was discriminated against for taking FMLA leave and discriminated against on the basis of her gender and pregnancy. Essentially, the plaintiff in that case claimed that she was discriminated against after she returned to work following her first maternity leave when she was demoted, stripped of her office, pushed into a position with compromised earning and advancement potential, and excluded from operational and social functions. In short, she claimed that she was relegated to a “mommy-track”. According to the complaint, the plaintiff was terminated less than two weeks before she was expected to return to work after her second maternity leave. Call the lawyers at Green Savits & Lenzo to discuss your legal rights if you are being mommy-tracked or if you were terminated while on leave.
Lawsuit Alleging Religious Discrimination Filed
November 8, 2010 — A lawsuit was filed against AutoZone alleging that a former employee was discriminated against because of his Sikh religion and retaliated against because of his complaints of discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff, while employed at AutoZone, was asked by his manager if he was a terrorist, if he intended to blow up the store, and if he had joined Al Qaeda. The Complaint further alleges that AutoZone (1) did not take any measures to stop co-workers or store customers when they referred to the plaintiff as Bin Laden or when they directed terrorist jokes at him, (2) failed to accommodate his religious beliefs by refusing to allow him to wear a turban and a religious bracelet – both of which are required of people who practice his religion, and (3) fired the plaintiff because of his religion and for complaining about discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of religion and retaliation for complaining about such discrimination are illegal. Call the lawyers at Green Savits & Lenzo to discuss your legal rights if you are being discriminated against because of your religious beliefs or practices or retaliated against for complaining about such discrimination.
Suit Alleges Koran Burning Not Proper Grounds For Termination
November 5, 2010 – A lawsuit was brought against New Jersey Transit on behalf of a former employee who was terminated for breaching the agency’s code of ethics when he burned a Koran during the recent anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Essentially, the lawsuit alleges that New Jersey Transit violated the plaintiff’s Constitutional rights when it terminated him for exercising his right to free speech. Call the employment lawyers at Green Savits & Lenzo if your employer is attempting to stifle your right to free speech or has fired you for exercising that right.
The Dangers of Using Work Computers, Internet or E-Mail Systems To Communicate With Your Attorneys
In Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 201 N.J. 300 (2010), the Supreme Court held employers’ policies do not trump the attorney-client privilege and that, therefore, employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mails sent to their attorneys through personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail accounts even if those e-mails are accessed on computers belonging to their employers. Employees should never communicate via their employers’ e-mail, internet, computer or phone systems with their attorneys or anyone else about a potential legal claim they may have arising from their employment.
Court Suggests That Employer’s Failure to Accommodate May be Actionable Even Without Adverse Employment Action
In September 2010, the Supreme Court held that it is likely that a failure to accommodate unaccompanied by any other adverse employment action (such as a termination, demotion or transfer) constitutes disability discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). Victor v. State of New Jersey, 2010 WL 3526480 (N.J. Sept. 13, 2010). Call the employment lawyers at Green, Savits & Lenzo if you are being denied a reasonable accommodation or discriminated against on the basis of your disability.
Unequal Pay Claim Based Upon Gender (Sex) And Age Pending Before Supreme Court
In Alexander v. Seton Hall Univ., 410 N.J. Super. 574 (App. Div. 2009), the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint alleging sex and age discrimination in violation of the Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). The Appellate Division, in adopting Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), held that a pay claim is time barred if the decision to discriminate in regard to pay was made outside the period of limitations regardless of the lasting effects of that decision as long as the employer did not act with discriminatory intent during the limitations period. In reaching this conclusion the Appellate Division acknowledged the existence of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (“FPA”) but concluded that the FPA was inapplicable to cases brought under the LAD because the New Jersey legislature has not enacted similar legislation. This case is currently pending before the Supreme Court who heard oral argument on this matter on September 13, 2010.Call the employment lawyers at Green, Savits & Lenzo if you are being discriminated against by being paid less or otherwise treated differently because of your age or gender (sex).
Post-Termination Retaliation
Earlier this year the Supreme Court held that post-termination retaliatory acts are actionable under the LAD. Roa v. Lafe, 200 N.J. 555 (2010). This means that an employer who retaliates against an employee who engaged in protected conduct by, for example, falsely stating to Unemployment that the employee was terminated for misconduct or gross misconduct may be held liable for a violation of the law. An employee engages in protected conduct by complaining about, objecting to or refusing to participate in an act that the employee reasonably believes violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination or the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (the law that protects employees who blow the whistle on wrongful conduct).Call the employment lawyers at Green, Savits & Lenzo if you are being retaliated against because you complained about, opposed or refused to participate in conduct that you reasonably believed was unlawful.
Causing Employees’ Disability Will Not Necessarily Put Employers on the Hook for Damages
This year, the Appellate Division held that a plaintiff suing under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (New Jersey’s whistleblower law) cannot be awarded post-employment economic damages without proving either actual involuntary termination of employment or constructive discharge, even if the defendant’s unlawful conduct caused the plaintiff to become medically disabled from working, resulting in a disability retirement. The Supreme Court has granted plaintiff’s petition for certification on this issue and the case remains pending before the Supreme Court. Donelson v. DuPont Chambers Works, 412 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 203 N.J. 95 (2010).Call the employment lawyers at Green, Savits & Lenzo if you are being harassed because you complained about, opposed or refused to participate in conduct that you reasonably believed was unlawful.
Non-Renewal of Employment Contract is a Termination
In Nini v. Mercer County Community College, 202 N.J. 98 (2010), the Supreme Court held that non-renewal of a term employment contract is equivalent to discharge of an at-will employee in the context of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination’s provision allowing employers to refuse to hire or promote employees over seventy years of age. In other words, an employer can be sued for age discrimination based on its refusal to renew the contract of an employee over the age of seventy, because that non-renewal is construed as a dismissal rather than a failure-to-hire.Call the employment lawyers at Green, Savits & Lenzo if you are being discriminated against on the basis of your age or if you have a contract dispute with your employer or former employer.
Plaintiffs Suing Under the Law Against Discrimination Are Not Necessarily Required To Undergo Psychiatric Examinations
On August 23, 2010, the Law Division held that plaintiffs suing under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination do not put their mental state in controversy so as to be required to submit to an independent psychiatric examination merely by asserting claims for emotional distress damages. This important Law Division case will have wide-spread application in all cases where employees seek emotional distress damages as a result of the unlawful conduct to which they were subjected by their employers. McGhee v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., Docket No. ATL-L-2459-08.
Green, Savits & Lenzo, LLC
35 Airport Road
Morristown, NJ 07960
Phone: (973) 695-7777
Fax: (973) 695-7788
Email
Our employment law firm proudly serves all of Northern and Central New Jersey, including the communities of Morristown, Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, Elizabeth, Edison, Woodbridge, Trenton, and Princeton, and the Counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren.
