Articles Discussing New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) contained an express exception for religious organizations that make employment decisions based on employment criteria adopted pursuant to the tenets of its religion.

THE NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION CONSIDERED WHETHER CONTRACTING COVID-19 IS SUFFICIENT FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO CLAIM THEY QUALIFY AS AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY UNDER THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

The New Jersey Senate is considering a bill (Senate Proposal) that, if passed, will significantly affect business operations and employment litigation in the state for years.

Executive Summary: On March 10, 2020, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the reinstatement of a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a medical cannabis cardholder against his former employer, after he was fired for failing a post-accident drug test. The holding confirms medical cannabis users in New Jersey have two potential avenues to bring discrimination lawsuits against employers: the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), and the recently amended Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act (“CUMCA”).

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) has released a 25-page guidance explaining its enforcement policies with respect to the state’s equal pay law. The guidance provides much-needed direction to companies navigating the pitfalls associated with compensation systems and policies.

The guidance addresses questions ranging from multistate employees to

The Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act (NJEPA) does not apply retroactively to conduct occurring before to its effective date, July 1, 2018, a federal district court has ruled. Perrotto v. Morgan Advanced Materials, 2:18-cv-13825-WJM-MF (D. N.J. Jan. 14, 2019). The court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss.

An amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to prohibit enforcement of non-disclosure provisions in certain agreements, including employment contracts and settlement agreements, has been passed by the New Jersey Legislature. The amendment could also potentially impact use of jury trial waivers, given the LAD’s jury trial provision. Governor Phil Murphy is expected to sign this legislation into law.

New Jersey’s Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act will take effect on July 1, 2018. The new law contains sweeping changes to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), such as a prohibition against discrimination with respect to compensation or financial terms of employment, a six-year statute of limitations, and treble damages for violators.

A registered nurse employed by a New Jersey health care system for approximately 10 years may proceed to a jury trial with her disability and perceived disability claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the Supreme Court of New Jersey has ruled. Grande v. Saint Clare’s Health Sys., 2017 N.J. LEXIS 746 (July 12, 2017). Summary judgment is not appropriate in this case because significant questions of fact exist, the Court found.

The specific facts presented to the jury will determine whether an award of “garden variety” emotional distress damages is reasonable, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held in an employment discrimination case brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). Cuevas v. Wentworth Group, A-30-14 (Sept. 19, 2016).

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently overturned the longstanding policy of permitting employers and employees to agree to a shortened timeframe for an employee to file a discrimination suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The case, Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., concerned the enforceability of a shortened statute of limitations contained in an employment application. The language in dispute, written in all capital letters and bold font, stated, “I agree that any claim or lawsuit relating to my service with [Defendant] must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. I waive any statute of limitations to the contrary.” The plaintiff signed the application and began his employment.

Executive Summary: The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that employment agreements shortening the time in which an employee may file a discrimination claim against his or her employer under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) are unenforceable. In a decision issued June 15, 2016, the Court unanimously ruled (6-0) that a six-month time limit for filing claims contained in an employment application was unenforceable and did not bar the plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims. See Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., No. A-27-14 (June 15, 2016).

The circumstances under which a company or organization may require an employee to undergo a medical examination can be confusing for employers, and for good reason: The “rules” are cobbled together from a variety of sources and are from the model of clarity. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently attempted to synthesize and clarify these rules in the case of In re Williams, a decision whose importance will likely increase as disability and reasonable accommodation issues continue to be fertile ground for plaintiffs’ attorneys. 2016 N.J. Super. LEXIS 15 (App.Div. Jan. 25, 2016)

A New Jersey casino did not violate the state’s anti-discrimination law by enforcing a weight standard for its costumed beverage servers, called “BorgataBabes,” a three-judge panel of the state appellate court has ruled, upholding summary judgment for the employer as to the policy.

Professionals strive to maintain safe and welcoming workplaces for employees and guests. To further this goal, many firms have incorporated into their employment manuals anti-harassment policies and training. Yet, despite such precautionary steps, an employer cannot guarantee an environment free of wrongdoers. In the unfortunate event of a claim, it is up to the court to determine whether an employer that took proactive measures to protect employees is nonetheless liable in employment related harassment claims.