Both private and public employers have obligations to their employees under New Jersey employment laws. These include obligations to pay a minimum wage and to maintain a workplace reasonably free from discrimination and harassment. Public employers, such as state and local agencies and officials, may also have a duty to respect their employees’ constitutional rights. An employee who believes their employer has discriminated against them because of their religion can bring a claim under a state or federal employment statute. If they work for a public employer, they may also be able to claim a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes New Jersey, recently ruled in favor of an employee’s religious discrimination claim. Rather than suing under an employment statute, the employee alleged violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
Public employees may be able to assert claims against their employers for violations of certain constitutional rights. Many claims rely on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to sue for deprivation of constitutional rights for actions taken “under color of any statute” or other law. Section 1983 claims are common in a wide variety of incidents involving government officials or agencies, from police brutality to employment discrimination.
It is also possible to allege a constitutional violation directly as a cause of action. These types of claims often involve First Amendment rights. For example, public employers do not have as much leeway to restrict their employees’ speech as private employers do. Public employees may be able to assert claims involving violations of their rights to free speech, freedom of religion, or other rights under the First Amendment.
The plaintiff in the Third Circuit case began working for a district attorney’s office (DAO) as an assistant district attorney in September 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic was still a major concern at the time. The DAO issued a mandatory vaccination policy in August 2021. It allowed religious exemptions on a case-by-case basis. The plaintiff, who is opposed to the vaccine as an Orthodox Jew, requested an exemption from the vaccine mandate within a week of her start date.
In January 2022, the DA “decided to categorically deny religious exemption requests without individualized assessment.” According to the court’s opinion, the DA claimed that he changed the DAO’s policy after consultation with advisors because of concern over the Omicron variant of COVID.
The DAO informed the plaintiff in March 2022 that her exemption claim was denied. She was told that “she would be placed on leave if she did not get vaccinated.” When she continued to refuse the vaccine, the DAO terminated her employment on April 8, 2022.
The plaintiff sued the DAO and the DA several weeks later. She asserted two causes of action for violations of the Free Exercise Clause and the state religious freedom statute. A U.S. District Judge granted summary judgment for the defendants in January 2023.
In July 2024, the Third Circuit vacated the lower court ruling and remanded the case. It held that factual disputes existed regarding the alleged policy change in January 2022. Those disputes raise questions about whether the denial of the plaintiff’s exemption application was discriminatory.
If you believe your employer has violated your legal or constitutional rights in New Jersey or New York, a knowledgeable employment lawyer can help you assert a claim for damages in state or federal court. Contact the Resnick Law Group today through our website or by calling 973-781-1204 or 646-867-7997 to schedule a confidential consultation to discuss your rights and options.