Articles Posted in Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in April 2024 that addresses an important question about what plaintiffs must prove in employment discrimination claims. Federal and New Jersey employment laws do not expressly state that a plaintiff alleging discrimination must prove that they suffered significant harm. Many courts, however, have interpreted antidiscrimination laws as requiring this kind of proof. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis overturned multiple lower court precedents applying this interpretation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It held that a discriminatory job transfer is unlawful even without evidence of a “materially significant disadvantage.”

Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII deals with unlawful employment discrimination. It mentions acts like “fail[ing[ or refus[ing] to hire” a person and “limit[ing], segregat[ing], or classify[ing]” employees in discriminatory ways. It does not specifically state that a discriminatory employment action must cause harm to the person experiencing the discrimination. Before Muldrow, many courts had interpreted this provision as requiring proof of harm in at least some cases. This includes courts in New Jersey.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Title VII discrimination claims involving “adverse employment actions” require proof of a “cognizable injury.” The injury must be serious enough to alter the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” In the 1997 decision establishing this rule, the court held that “unnecessary derogatory comments” made toward the plaintiff did not rise to this level. Refusal to recommend the plaintiff for a promotion based on discriminatory grounds, however, would meet the standard. Muldrow may overturn the Third Circuit’s rule.
Continue reading

New Jersey employment law prohibits employers from screening job applicants based on their salary history. Employers also may not require applicants to provide salary history information. The law helps job seekers overcome historical disparities in pay. It requires employers to base new hires’ pay on the market rate for their labor rather than their previous salary or wages. The law includes an exception for situations where a federal law or regulation requires job applicants to disclose salary history, or employers to verify that information. This exception might not be an issue much longer for many situations governed by federal law. In January 2024, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council published proposed regulations in the Federal Register that would prohibit federal contractors from asking job applicants for salary information or using salary history to screen applicants.

A 2019 New Jersey law addresses how employers may use salary history during the hiring process. Employers may not require applicants to provide information about past wages or salary. They may not use that information in hiring decisions. If, however, an applicant provides such information voluntarily, “without employer prompting or coercion,” the employer may consider that information when determining that individual’s “salary, benefits, and other compensation.”

Employers who violate the 2019 law may face civil penalties, payable to the state, that start at $1,000 for a first violation. A second violation carries a $5,000 fine, and a third may result in a $10,000 fine. If a job applicant is part of a protected group under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, they may also have the right to sue for violations of the salary history law.
Continue reading

Service in the U.S. military and other uniformed services can mean a great deal of uncertainty. People who serve in the National Guard or Armed Forces Reserves have training obligations and may find themselves called to active duty. This can cause difficulties with employment in both the private sector and non-military government jobs. New Jersey employment law prohibits employers from discriminating based on military service obligations, but its protections only cover mandatory service in the Armed Forces. Federal law goes further by addressing servicemembers’ ability to return to their jobs after their service ends. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) turns thirty this year, having become law in October 1994. It offers important protections for New Jersey servicemembers.

Who Does USERRA Cover?

USERRA applies broadly to people on active or inactive duty in any of the uniformed services of the United States. This includes the six branches of the Armed Forces: the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force. It also includes the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Surgeon General, for example, is an officer with the Public Health Service.

In contrast, New Jersey’s antidiscrimination law only applies to mandatory active duty service in the Armed Forces. This includes service in a National Guard or Reserve unit and induction through a draft.
Continue reading

When applying New Jersey employment laws dealing with discrimination, courts have long held that plaintiffs must prove that they suffered actual harm. This might involve the loss of a job, lower wages, or the loss of other benefits or features of employment. Many courts around the country have applied similar interpretations to laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court could change how courts in New Jersey and nationwide interpret these laws. A police sergeant alleges that her employer discriminated against her based on sex by transferring her to a different position. The lower courts found that she had not established that an “adverse employment action” had occurred. A ruling in her favor could help plaintiffs prove unlawful discrimination in cases where the discrimination did not cause them to suffer major disadvantages.

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on several categories, including sex. Section 703(a)(1) of the statute addresses unlawful practices by employers. While it identifies several specific adverse actions, such as firing someone or refusing to hire them, it also includes a catch-all category that simply states employers may not “otherwise…discriminate” against employees or job applicants because of sex or other protected categories.

The plain language of § 703(a)(1) does not necessarily require proof that a discriminatory act had a negative impact. This might affect the amount of damages a plaintiff could receive, but under this view, it would not affect whether or not they could assert a claim. Most courts, however, have taken the view that some employment discrimination claims require proof that a plaintiff suffered tangible harm.
Continue reading

New Jersey employment law protects workers from discrimination on the basis of numerous factors, such as race, religion, sex, disability, and national origin, to name only a few. In some cases, an employer’s unlawful actions clearly violate someone’s legal rights based on one of the protected categories identified in state and federal law. The categories can blur together in other cases, though. This can create confusion. It can also lead people to overlook claims that they might have under state and federal antidiscrimination laws. Some types of bias and discrimination can span multiple categories, including race, color, religion, and national origin. New Jersey employees should be aware of their rights when it comes to these types of issues.

Both the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) and Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 specifically identify race, color, religion, and national origin as protected categories. This means that employers may not take adverse actions against employees or job applicants on the basis of any of these factors. This includes refusing to hire someone, demoting them, firing them, or denying them opportunities to advance their careers. Employers may have to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ religion observances, as long as doing so does not create an undue burden.

Title VII does not provide definitions for the terms “race,” “color,” or “national origin.” It defines “religion” as including “​​all aspects of religious observance and practice.” The NJLAD does not define “religion,” “color,” or “national origin.” Its definition of race includes the common understanding of that term along with “traits historically associated with race,” such as hairstyles and types of hair.
Continue reading