Discrimination

February 26, 2014

New Jersey Appellate Division Upholds State Law Prohibiting Hiring Discrimination Based on Unemployment

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that a state law prohibiting discrimination based on unemployment did not violate employers’ First Amendment rights of free speech. New Jersey Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development v. Crest Ultrasonics, No. A-0417-12T4, slip op. (N.J. App. Div., Jan. 7, 2014). The plaintiffs alleged that the statute, N.J.S.A. §§ 34:8B-1 et seq., infringed on their free speech rights by improperly regulating the content of public job listings. The court held that the statute meets the requirements set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court for content-based restrictions on commercial speech. The ruling is excellent news for New Jersey’s workers and job seekers, many of whom have experienced lengthy periods of time without work.

Unemployment can become a catch-22 for some job seekers, as employers might be unwilling to hire someone who has been out of work for six months or more. The longer one goes without work, the harder it can be to find a job. The law, enacted by the New Jersey Legislature in 2011, seeks to address this problem by placing restrictions on advertisements in print media or on the internet for job openings within the state. Advertisements may not state that current employment is a requirement for a job, that an employer will not consider applicants who are currently unemployed, or that an employer will only consider applicants who are currently employed. The law does not, however, prevent employers from using unemployment as a criterion in their actual decision-making.

Shortly after the law took effect, the plaintiff placed a classified advertisement in the Burlington Times for a service manager position. The ad appeared on August 31, 2011 and stated that applicants for the position “[m]ust currently be employed.” The Department of Labor and Workforce Development (LWD) determined that the company had violated N.J.S.A. § 34:8B-1 and assessed a fine of $1,000. The Commissioner of the LWD affirmed the penalty in an administrative decision issued on August 17, 2012, and the company appealed the decision to the Superior Court.
Continue reading

February 21, 2014

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Addresses Legal Definition of “Employer” in Sexual Harassment Case

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A plaintiff could not maintain a sexual harassment complaint because the defendant was not her employer under state or federal law, according to a recent appellate court ruling. Plaso v. IJKG, LLC, No. 13-2565, slip op. (3rd Cir., Jan. 21, 2014). The plaintiff worked at the defendant’s business location, and the sexual harassment forming the basis of her complaint allegedly took place there. Her salary and the authority to hire or fire her, however, originated with another company. Although the court ruled against the plaintiff, she was able to settle claims with the alleged harasser and the company that employed both of them. The case offers useful guidance for New Jersey workers considering a claim sexual harassment or other forms of employment discrimination
The U.S. Supreme Court developed a three-part test to determine whether a party is an “employer” in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992), and the Third Circuit has adopted the test for Title VII and other laws. It identifies the party that has “the right to control the manner and means” of the plaintiff’s employment, id. at 323-24, through three “indicia of control”: (1) who pays the worker’s salary, (2) who has the right to hire and fire the worker, and (3) who controls the worker’s “daily employment activity.” Plaso, slip op. at 9, quoting Covington v. Intern. Ass’n of Approved Basketball, 710 F.3d 114, 119 (3rd Cir. 2013).

The plaintiff began working for a consulting firm based in Ohio, Healthcare MCR, in early 2008. Her direct supervisor, R. Brent Martin, assigned her to work at the office of a client, Bayonne Medical Center (BMC) in Bayonne, New Jersey. Martin also worked there as Chief Restructuring Officer. The plaintiff worked at BMC five days a week; had her own office, along with telephone and email account; and interacted with BMC staff on a daily basis. Martin was usually working at BMC, and the plaintiff went through him for most employment concerns, such as work hours and leave. Her paycheck came from Healthcare.
Continue reading

February 6, 2014

Pregnancy Now a Protected Class Under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed a bill into law in late January 2014 amending the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to include pregnancy as a protected class. The LAD has long protected employees from discrimination based on sex and disability, but it did not include pregnancy as a distinct class until now. New Jersey’s law, in addition to prohibiting discrimination and retaliation based on pregnancy or childbirth, identifies specific examples of reasonable accommodations employers should provide.

Strong protections for pregnant employees are critically important, as many women find it necessary to continue working well into their pregnancies. According to a report issued last year by the National Women’s Law Center, about two-thirds of first-time mothers worked during their pregnancies between 2006 and 2008, compared to only forty-four percent between 1961 and 1965. Of the women who worked while pregnant from 2006 to 2008, eighty-eight percent of them worked through their last two months of pregnancy, and eighty-two percent worked into the last month. Their income is also generally indispensable, as the study found that women are the primary “breadwinners” in forty-one percent of families, with more women in that role among lower-income households. The laws relating to pregnancy and employment, however, are still changing to reflect these realities.

Federal law, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978, also protects against discrimination based on pregnancy. The PDA added pregnancy as a distinct type of gender discrimination. It addresses discrimination and retaliation for covered employers, but not reasonable accommodations. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to pregnancy discrimination, although neither the courts nor the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have defined employers’ obligations to accommodate employees under this law. Only eight states, including New Jersey, specifically include pregnancy as a protected class in their anti-discrimination laws. Some cities, like New York, include it in their anti-discrimination ordinances.
Continue reading

January 16, 2014

Jury Award Reminds Employers in New Jersey and Across the U.S. that Race Discrimination is Illegal

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A California jury has issued a $1.1 million verdict in favor of an African-American firefighter who suffered unlawful race discrimination at work. In Jabari Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles, a 53-year-old man filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Fire Department alleging he became the victim of racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. According to his complaint, Jabari Jumaane was disciplined and suspended at least twice while employed as a fire inspector with the Los Angeles Fire Department after his superior officer falsified his performance evaluations. Jumaane also claims he took a voluntary demotion to firefighter after more than 27 years with the Department in an effort to avoid continued racial discrimination. His lawsuit was the second time the issue went before a Los Angeles jury. A 2007 jury verdict issued in favor of the City of Los Angeles was later overturned due to juror misconduct.

At trial, Jumaane testified that he was often subjected to racial slurs, jokes, and other verbal abuse at work. City officials alleged that Jumaane’s disciplinary history was entirely warranted and he invented his discrimination claims because he was dissatisfied with the Department’s disciplinary process. After six days of deliberations, jurors sided with Jumaane and ordered the City of Los Angeles to pay him $1.1 million. City officials are reportedly considering whether to appeal the jury’s verdict.

This case is not the first time the Los Angeles Fire Department has faced scrutiny over alleged race discrimination. The Fire Department was accused of systemic discrimination against African-Americans in the past. In addition, the City paid another firefighter $1.5 million in 2006 in order to avoid a potentially costly race discrimination trial.
Continue reading

January 10, 2014

Lawsuit Demonstrates that Workers in New Jersey and Elsewhere May Not be Sexually Harassed for Failing to Conform to Gender Stereotypes

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of a construction worker in a sexual harassment lawsuit. In EEOC v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., the nation’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Louisiana man who claims he was subjected to verbal and physical harassment by a male work supervisor because he does not conform to the man’s gender stereotypes.

The employee was initially hired by Boh Bros. Construction Co. to perform welding and iron repair work on a Louisiana bridge following Hurricane Katrina. He was later transferred to a bridge maintenance crew consisting of about six men and one supervisor. According to the record presented at trial, the supervisor regularly used vulgar language at work. A few months after his transfer, the supervisor began calling the employee names, questioning his masculinity, and performing harassing acts that “embarrassed and humiliated” him.

After the employee complained about the supervisor’s behavior, he was transferred to another work crew. Later, the supervisor learned that the employee violated a company policy and told him to meet with the general supervisor. The employee again complained about the harassment and was sent home without pay. The employee claims there was no discussion of the policy violation. The general supervisor apparently performed a perfunctory investigation of the harassment allegations and determined they were without merit. Two days later, the employee was told to report to work. A few months after he filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC, he was laid off for lack of work.
Continue reading

December 6, 2013

New York Attorney General Announces Settlement Reached in Pregnancy Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuit Against Syracuse Mortuary School

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman recently announced that his office has settled a sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed against a Syracuse mortuary school and its president in 2011. As part of the settlement, the Simmons Institute of Funeral Services and Maurice Wightman agreed to pay restitution to a number of former instructors and students who filed complaints against the school and to implement reforms designed to ensure future harassment and discrimination do not occur. Additionally, both the school and Wightman agreed to refrain from engaging in any sort of retaliation against the women who filed complaints against the institution and to immediately report any future harassment or discrimination allegations to the Office of the Attorney General.

According to the lawsuit, Wightman made sexual comments and inappropriately touched female students. He also allegedly refused to allow both pregnant students and faculty to engage in certain activities despite doctor approval. Ironically, Wightman is reportedly the private for-profit school’s designated contact for all discrimination and harassment complaints.

In New York, discrimination on the basis of a woman’s pregnancy constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. Title IX of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits any educational institution that receives federal funds from engaging in sex discrimination in education. Additionally, both New York and federal law require employers and educators to refrain from engaging in pregnancy discrimination.
Continue reading

December 3, 2013

New York Lawmakers Propose Bill That Would Protect Interns From Harassment and Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A bill that was recently introduced in the New York Legislature would provide unpaid interns with many of the same statutory protections that employees across the state currently enjoy. S05951 would make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against interns who are members of a protected class. If the proposed measure is approved, interns would be legally protected from discrimination based upon race, creed, age, national origin, color, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, and other factors. It would also provide unpaid employees with both sexual harassment and whistleblower protections.

The bill was introduced by democratic lawmaker Liz Krueger of Manhattan. She stated a recent New York federal court ruling in which an intern’s sexual harassment lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing under the New York Human Rights Law demonstrates the need for the proposed legislation. In the past, some courts have also held that interns are not afforded the same protections as employees under federal civil rights laws. If the proposed measure is passed, New York will become the second state to provide unpaid interns with substantially similar legal protections as paid employees. Oregon enacted a so-called intern rights law in June.

Employers in New York, New Jersey, and throughout the nation are not legally required to treat each worker fairly. For example, in some situations an employer may engage in nepotism, favoritism, or simple “office politics.” An employee who is treated poorly may only seek legal action where the discrimination was based on a legally protected status. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating against a worker based on race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Both the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law prohibit employment discrimination based on gender and other factors. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination also makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate in any job-related action on the basis of one or more of the statute’s protected categories.
Continue reading

December 3, 2013

Exxon to Begin Offering Same-Sex Spousal Benefits in New Jersey and Across the U.S. Amid Allegations of Sexual Orientation Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

In September, Exxon Mobil Corporation announced that the company would begin offering benefits to the legally married same-sex spouses of employees in the United States. According to a spokesperson for the company, Alan Jeffers, the change was made in response to official guidance that was issued by the nation’s Department of Labor after the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June. Jeffers stated that Exxon has not changed its criteria for benefits eligibility. He added that the oil and gas company offers same-sex spousal benefits in at least 30 nations consistent with local legal requirements.

Despite the change, Exxon has been accused of failing to adequately protect gay workers and applicants in the past. This year, the Human Rights Campaign ranked the company dead last when compared with other corporate gay, lesbian, and transgender employee anti-discrimination policies. In addition, a lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination against a gay job applicant was recently filed against Exxon in the State of Illinois.

All current or potential employees in New Jersey who are members of a protected class are protected from workplace discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating based on race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Additionally, New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate in any job-related action on the basis of any of the statute’s protected categories. LAD protected categories include sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, race, sex, pregnancy status, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, marital status, mental or physical disability, and others.
Continue reading

December 3, 2013

Jury Verdict Sends Message to Employers that Disability Discrimination is Unacceptable in New Jersey and Across U.S.

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A federal jury has ruled in favor of a 25-year-old mentally disabled man who was discriminated against by his employer in Texas. According to a lawsuit filed against the Kroger chain of grocery stores, the mentally challenged former employee worked at one of the company’s stores without incident for four years before he was transferred to a grocery store in Plano. The man claims a store manager began verbally abusing him and calling him names about one-week after the transfer. The 25-year-old also alleges that he was regularly asked to perform duties by himself that normally required at least two people. Approximately one year after he was transferred, the disabled man filed a discrimination and harassment lawsuit against the company. The young man also claims he was fired as a direct result of filing the legal complaint.

After four days of testimony regarding the alleged harassment endured by the mentally challenged 25-year-old, a jury issued an award of $450,000 in damages. His father stated he was happy with the verdict because it sends a message to employers that discrimination against the disabled will not be tolerated. A representative for Dallas-based Kroger said the company is currently considering whether to appeal the jury’s verdict.

Unfortunately, not all disability discrimination is immediately so obvious. Sadly, many employers in New Jersey and elsewhere choose to unlawfully discriminate against or harass workers who suffer from a disability due to biased thinking. Disabled persons in New York and New Jersey have a right to expect that their employers will provide them with reasonable accommodations that allow them to perform their essential job duties. If a disability does not physically prevent a worker from performing his or her job requirements, an employer has no legal basis on which to discriminate. If your request for reasonable accommodations at work due to a disability was denied, your rights may have been violated.
Continue reading

November 1, 2013

New Jersey Governor Signs Law Designed to Help Women Gain Access to Equal Pay in the Workplace

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has signed into law a bill designed to assist women in the fight for equal pay. The new law prohibits employers from punishing workers who disclose their rate of pay or other compensation information to co-workers who seek to investigate whether a company or employer is engaging in compensation discrimination.

In 2009, data compiled by the United States Census Bureau found that women earn about three-fourths the pay rate of their male counterparts. In high paying professions, the pay gap is reportedly even wider. Census data also found that minority women tend to suffer the highest pay disparity when compared with white men.

The new law was sponsored in the New Jersey Assembly by legislators Angel Fuentes, Pam Lampitt, and Celeste Riley. According to Fuentes, the law will make it more difficult for employers to continue “discriminatory compensation practices” based on gender because workers will be protected from retaliation over sharing their compensation information. Lampitt, who also serves as Assembly Women and Children Committee Chair, stated she hopes the law will help to chip away at the remaining glass ceiling. Riley added that it only makes sense for women with equal education and experience to receive equal pay for the same job.
Continue reading