Total Articles: 16
Missed This New Jersey MDV the First Time Around
I was in Lubbock yesterday talking to their SHRM chapter about retaliation and the dangers of those cases, along with its first cousin whistleblowing, and this headline did nothing to change my mind. Former Warren Township prosecutor awarded $1.26M for whistleblower complaint.
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination: Protecting A Wolf In The HR Den?
What can a New Jersey employer do about a Human Resources Manager who steals and discloses confidential personnel information in order to bolster her discrimination lawsuit? Nothing, according to the New Jersey Supreme Court in its recent and highly nuanced opinion in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation. While theft of documents is, of course, a legitimate ground for termination, if a jury finds an employee was fired for use of the stolen documents in litigation, as opposed to theft, the employer could be liable for unlawful retaliation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Quinlan is particularly troubling for employers in that theft and disregard for the rules of discovery may be rewarded and leave an employer with its hands tied.
Court Rejects Discriminatory Failure to Hire Claim Based Solely on Applicant’s Own Allegations.
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.
Statute of Limitations No Bar to Discrimination Claim Where Employee Can Show Continuation of Conduct.
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.
Bill to Amend Law Against Discrimination in Significant Ways Advances.
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:
Statute Of Limitations On Teacher's Discrimination Claim Begins To Run On Date Plaintiff Received Notice Of Reduction In Force.
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.
$10 Million Punitive Damage Award Against Employer Where 8 Employees Replaced By Younger Workers.
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.
Employer's Prior Differential Treatment Of Protected v. Unprotected Employees Saves Claim From Dismissal.
Plaintiff, a female radio host, was terminated for making an allegedly threatening on-air comment about a police officer.
Post-Termination Conduct May Give Rise To LAD Retaliation Claim, Extend Statute Of Limitations.
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.
Notice-of-Claim Requirement Does Not Apply to New Jersey's Civil Rights Act.
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).
Dishonesty In Job Application May Limit, But Does Not Bar, NJLAD Claim.
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.
Supervisor Liability Under LAD Clarified.
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.
Proposed Amendments to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to Bar Mandatory Arbitration Provisions, Prohibit "Abusive" Conduct, Require Reasonable Accommodation of Pregnancy, and More.
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”).
N.J. Sup. Ct. Applies Discrimination Law, Holds School District Liable For Bullying.
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."
Gender Identity and Expression Amendments to New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Take Effect Today.
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.
Prejudgment Interest Available under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (pdf).
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.
