Plaintiff applied for a State Trooper position and was initially found to be qualified after a background check. Approximately eight months passed before a final hiring decision was made, and the State determined that a second investigation and background check was necessary. Following the subsequent investigation and background check, the State found Plaintiff to be unqualified for the position. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the State’s decision not to hire him was based on national origin discrimination.

Plaintiff was terminated from his position as a toolmaker in Defendant’s machine shop on July 9, 2002. On November 11, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging religious discrimination based on anti-Semitic comments allegedly made to him beginning in October 2001, and filed suit in the District Court.

On November 13, 2008, the Assembly Judiciary Committee reported favorably on Assembly Bill (A2292) which would amend the Law Against Discrimination in a variety of significant ways, including:

Issues of alleged discrimination can venture far outside the traditional realm of employer-employee disputes under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Last month, an online match-making company settled a matter with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (“DCR”) in which the Company’s business model, and the services (or lack of services) provided by the Company, were the basis for the discrimination claim.

A state appellate court for the first time in New Jersey has adopted the imposition of the “cat’s paw” liability, whereby an employer may be liable for a lower-level supervisor’s discriminatory behavior even though the ultimate decision maker is incapable of discrimination.

A unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the standard of proof in religion- and ancestry-based hostile work environment claims brought under the state Law Against Discrimination is no greater than it is in sex- or race-based hostile work environment claims. Jason Cutler v. Theodore Dorn, et al., A-51-07 (July 31, 2008). The Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim and reinstated the trial verdict for the plaintiff.

Here, the Appellate Division affirmed the State Board of Education’s determination that a non-tenured teacher’s discrimination claim was barred by the statute of limitations, where the teacher received notice that her contract would not be renewed due to a RIF, but did not file a discrimination claim until after the 90-day limitations period expired.

A Morris County jury awarded $10 million in punitive damages against Defendant corporation where Plaintiff demonstrated that a new department head fired eight people, with an average age of 49, and replaced them with individuals averaging 35 years of age.

Plaintiff, a female radio host, was terminated for making an allegedly threatening on-air comment about a police officer.

In a decision that could have far-reaching effects on LAD litigation, the Appellate Division has ruled that actions taken by an employer post-termination can constitute actionable retaliation as part of a continuing violation, even if they are unrelated to the workplace. In this particular case, the post-termination act in question was to cancel Plaintiff’s health insurance, retroactive to a date prior to his termination.

Owens, et al., v. Feigin, et al., A-43-07 (N.J. June 3, 2008) — The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that the 90-day notice of claim requirement under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA) does not apply to causes of action brought under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA).

Addressing the issue of “after acquired evidence”, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an individual who concealed requested, but not disqualifying, information on a job application – here, information about a prior conviction – is not precluded from pursuing a claim under the NJLAD, even if the employer can show that it would not have hired the employee had it known of the information at the time of hiring.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held in the Cicchetti case that a supervisor can only be held personally liable under the NJLAD if he/she was an “aider or abettor,” which “require[s] active and purposeful conduct.” Although several questions about individual liability remain – such as whether a non-supervisory employee can be held individually liable under the NJLAD – the Court definitively held that a supervisor who is merely accused of failing to respond promptly to complaints of harassment or discrimination cannot be personally liable under the NJLAD.

On January 28, 2008, a bill (A1898) was introduced in response to the New Jersey Appellate Court decision in Cutler v. Dorn (App. Div. 2007), which held that several sporadic Anti-Semitic comments and pranks made to a police officer were not unlawful under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

An appeals court in New Jersey has revived a sexual and ethnic harassment lawsuit brought against the state by a social worker who counseled inmates in one of its correctional facilities even though she was employed by a private company. Because the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("DOC") exercised sufficient control over the plaintiff to give rise to an employment relationship, the court held she could pursue a hostile work environment claim against DOC under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD").

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that the State's Law Against Discrimination, (LAD), extends to students in a public school setting, holding a school board liable for student-on-student sexual harassment. In reaching this decision, the Court unanimously proclaimed that "students in the classroom are entitled to no less protection from unlawful discrimination and harassment than their adult counterparts in the workplace." In sweeping language, the Court stated that "reasonable measures are required to protect our youth, a duty that schools are more than capable of performing."

Employers in New Jersey are prohibited from discriminating against an employee because of his or her "gender identity or expression" under amendments to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) that take effect today. Accordingly, New Jersey employers must make appropriate modifications to their EEO policies and become educated on issues and terminology with which they may not be familiar.

It's hard to imagine that it took this long, but plaintiff's are now required to establish that a retaliation claim under the NJLAD was reasonably filed and done in good faith.

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently vacated an award of punitive damages to a woman who prevailed at trial against her former employer in a hostile work environment claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

The Court further held a school district shall be liable when it “knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take actions reasonably calculated to end the mistreatment and offensive conduct.”

In Carmona v. Resorts International Hotel, No. A-83-05 (February 21, 2007), the New Jersey Supreme Court held, in a case of first impression, that a plaintiff asserting a statutory retaliation claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") must prove, as part of the prima facie case, that an initial complaint was filed reasonably and in good faith, and that an unreasonable, frivolous or bad-faith complaint is an insufficient basis to establish a LAD retaliation claim.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD") not only protects employees from discrimination. It also protects them from retaliation. When an employee opposes or complains about discrimination in the workplace, the employer may not terminate him or take any other adverse action as a result. See N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d). Unfortunately, that protection is open to abuse by employees who may attempt to "set up" a retaliation claim. Typically, a problem employee who may soon be terminated or otherwise subject to adverse action — for legitimate reasons such as misconduct or poor performance -- will make a preemptory "complaint" so that when the employer takes the action, it appears to follow closely on the heels of the complaint. The New Jersey Supreme Court's recent decision in Carmona v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc. should help to prevent that type of abuse. Slip op. (N.J. Feb. 21, 2007). In Carmona, the court held that an employee who claims retaliation under the NJLAD must prove that his original purported complaint about discrimination was "made reasonably and in good faith." Id. at 23. Of course, as the court stated, "[t]he obverse also holds true: an unreasonable, frivolous, bad-faith, or unfounded complaint" will not support a claim. Id.

In a recent decision that could have a signifi cant economic impact on companies with employees in New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that prejudgment interest is available under the state’s Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1 et seq. (the “LAD”), even in cases where the defendant is a public entity.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has issued a ruling making it easier for individuals to clear the initial hurdle in a lawsuit claiming discrimination under the state's fair employment practices law.