Articles Posted in Discrimination

Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related issues remains a problem in workplaces in New Jersey and around the country despite numerous forward strides in recent years. In 2014, amendments to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) added pregnancy discrimination as a specific unlawful employment practice. This includes failure to provide reasonable accommodations to workers who are pregnant or who have given birth recently. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on a pregnancy discrimination claim earlier this year, affirming that both disparate treatment based on pregnancy and failure to provide reasonable accommodations are violations of the NJLAD. This could be a timely concern for many New Jersey workers who are returning to the workplace as the COVID-19 pandemic winds down. The news media have reported on numerous difficulties faced by people who are looking for jobs while also dealing with parental responsibilities.

Under federal law, pregnancy discrimination is included in the statutory definition of discrimination “on the basis of sex.” Prior to 2014, pregnancy discrimination under the NJLAD could also be viewed as a form of sex or gender discrimination. Pregnancy is now listed as a distinct protected category along with sex, gender identity or expression, and others. State law also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers, such as additional bathroom and water breaks, lifting restrictions, and modified work schedules based on their needs during pregnancy. Employers must offer these accommodations in a way that is at least equally favorable as accommodations offered for reasons other than pregnancy.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of a police officer who alleged pregnancy discrimination by Ocean Township and various officials. Her lawsuit involved two standing operating procedures (SOPs) regarding “light duty” work assignments. One SOP specifically addressed light duty related to pregnancy, while the other applied to injuries not related to pregnancy.
Continue reading

A criminal conviction can have long-lasting effects on a person’s life, even after they have completed their sentence. Many employers refuse to hire applicants with felony records, and sometimes even having a record of an arrest can work against a person. Numerous states, including New Jersey, have enacted laws that restrict the use of criminal history in hiring to various degrees. The goal is to help people restart their lives once they have “repaid their debt to society,” as the saying goes. New Jersey employment laws bar employers from asking about criminal history in the early stages of the hiring process. They are not the only safeguard for job seekers looking for a fresh start. The use of criminal history in hiring can lead to discrimination on the basis of race. A putative class action filed this summer in a New Jersey federal court makes this allegation against a national retail chain.

Laws that restrict employer inquiries about criminal history are informally known as “ban the box” laws, in reference to the checkbox on many job applications asking whether an applicant has a criminal record. New Jersey’s law does not go as far as other laws. It bars employers from asking applicants about criminal history during the “initial employment application process.” After that, employers may ask, and the law does not restrict how they may use the information they obtain. Laws in some other jurisdictions prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants on the basis of criminal history, with exceptions when an applicant’s history is directly relevant to the job they are seeking.

Laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. This includes both overt discrimination that treats members of one race differently from others, and “disparate impact” discrimination, in which a seemingly neutral policy or practice has a disproportionately negative effect on members of one race. A plaintiff claiming disparate impact discrimination does not need to prove that the employer intended to discriminate. They only need to show that the policy or practice was not reasonably necessary for the employer’s business operations, and that it negatively affected one race more than others.
Continue reading

The New Jersey Legislature passed a law last year legalizing recreational cannabis. The governor signed it into law in February 2021. The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) legalizes the possession and use of cannabis by people who are at least 21 years old. It also clarifies some issues related to employment law and establishes standards for workplace drug testing. In August 2021, the ​​New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (NJCRC) issued guidelines on legal issues surrounding the personal use of cannabis. The guidelines do not address various employment issues, instead deferring them to a later date.

CREAMMA amends existing state law to include employment protections related to lawful cannabis use. Despite laws authorizing its use to varying degrees in most states, cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. Many employers have continued to ban cannabis use by employees, even when they are not on the job, as part of broader “drug-free workplace” policies.

Earlier New Jersey cannabis laws legalizing its use did not provide any employment protection for individuals who used cannabis in compliance with the law, such as for medical purposes with a doctor’s prescription. Section 24:6I-52(a)(1), newly added by CREAMMA, bars employers from discriminating against employees based on both legal cannabis use and refusal to engage in legal cannabis use. They are also barred from discriminating against an employee because of “the presence of cannabinoid metabolites in the employee’s bodily fluid,” when this is the result of lawful conduct.
Continue reading

The Resnick Law Group achieved a major victory for one of our clients earlier this month, when the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that she did not have to show an “adverse employment action” in order to bring a claim under New Jersey disability discrimination law. The plaintiff alleged that her employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her, and that this resulted in life altering injuries to her. The court also ruled that the claim was not barred by the state’s workers’ compensation law.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) protects workers against discrimination on the basis of disability. It defines this term very broadly to include illnesses that are “demonstrable…by accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” The text of the NJLAD itself does not specifically require employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, but the New Jersey Administrative Code requires accommodations as long as they do not present an “undue hardship” for the employer. Failure to provide an accommodation is an “unlawful employment practice” under the NJLAD.

One question before the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether a plaintiff has to show an adverse employment action in order to make a claim for failure to accommodate a disability. An “adverse employment action” has typically been defined as a termination, suspension, or demotion. For the first time however, the high court decided that employees that suffer from a disability and do not necessarily fall into the above categories are also entitled to relief, and determined that an “adverse employment action” is not required to be shown in a reasonable accommodation case.
Continue reading

New Jersey employment laws bar discrimination based on disability. An employer cannot fire an employee or subject them to other adverse actions because of an injury, illness, or other condition that significantly affects their lives. State law uses a broad definition of “disability” that includes physical and mental conditions. Two lawsuits currently pending in New Jersey’s federal district court allege disability discrimination based on use of prescribed medication. One suit involves a plaintiff with a prescription for medical marijuana. The other involves an amphetamine-based medication used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The defendant in both cases is a major online retailer that operates multiple warehouses and distribution centers in New Jersey.

“Disability,” according to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), includes “any mental, psychological, or developmental disability…which prevents the typical exercise of any bodily or mental functions,” or which can be identified “by accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12(q). The statute requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ disabilities. Failure to do so is an unlawful practice under the NJLAD.

New Jersey passed a law in 2009 authorizing the distribution and possession of small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes with a doctor’s prescription. As originally written, the law stated that it did not require employers “to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.” It was not clear whether this meant the literal use of marijuana while at work, or if it allowed employers to enforce policies regarding marijuana use regardless of an employee’s medical needs. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a plaintiff could bring a disability discrimination claim under NJLAD based on lawful medical marijuana use. The New Jersey Legislature also amended the statute to remove the language about employers and accommodations.
Continue reading