Discrimination

November 6, 2020

Does the ADA Prohibit Discrimination in New Jersey on the Basis of Opioid Addiction? The EEOC Weighs In.

Both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) protect workers against discrimination on the basis of disability. The definition of “disability” has changed over the years to encompass a wide range of conditions. The public’s understanding of addiction has begun to take psychological factors into account. This has led to questions about whether addiction may qualify as a disability under the ADA or the NJLAD. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently reviewed the law surrounding disability discrimination as it relates to opioid use and addiction. If you feel you have been discriminated against for use of opioids, it would be prudent to discuss the matter with a New Jersey employment discrimination attorney to learn what rights you have under state and federal law.

What Do Federal and State Disability Discrimination Laws in New Jersey Say About Opioids?

Opioid addiction is a serious problem in New Jersey and throughout the U.S. The definitions of “disability” in both the ADA and the NJLAD leave open the possibility that some forms of addiction could be considered disabilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1), N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-5(q). The ADA makes a specific exception, however, for individuals who are “currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs.” 42 U.S.C. § 12114(a).

Opioids and Disability Discrimination

The EEOC’s guidance document delves into the language of the ADA and the regulations implementing the law. It notes that the document does not have “the force and effect of law,” but rather represents its own interpretation of the ADA. It divides the analysis into three questions, the answers to which could lead to a viable claim for disability discrimination.

September 10, 2020

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Hiring Leads to Concerns Over Employment Discrimination in New Jersey and Elsewhere

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The hiring process is growing increasingly automated, as employers in New Jersey and around the country turn to artificial intelligence (AI) that uses hiring algorithms. This could be a time-saving measure for employers, helping them sort through large numbers of job applications, but it can also potentially result in violation of antidiscrimination laws. While it might seem unlikely that employers would use these algorithms for deliberate discrimination against categories protected by laws like the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, not all unlawful employment discrimination requires discriminatory intent. AI relies on the information it receives from human users. When an AI bases hiring recommendations on existing data or past hiring patterns, it could end up perpetuating inequities. One question that courts are only beginning to address that could have an impact on New Jersey employment discrimination cases is how to determine liability when a computer engages in discrimination on an employer’s behalf.

Disparate Impact Discrimination

A policy or practice with no discriminatory intent can still violate antidiscrimination laws if it has a disparate impact on members of a protected group when compared to others. The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized disparate impact discrimination in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). The employer, located in North Carolina, required applicants for certain jobs to have a high school diploma and to pass an IQ test. The policy had a substantially disparate impact on Black applicants. The court found that the employer’s policy was not “reasonably related” to the jobs in question, and that it therefore violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Discrimination in, Discrimination Out

AI algorithms are designed to simulate the functions of the human brain. They cannot “think” on their own — at least not yet. Instead, they process information according to algorithms, all provided by humans. Hiring AIs consider metrics like education and work experience. The most sophisticated hiring tools available right now can even analyze video recordings of job interviews to evaluate candidates.

July 24, 2020

New Jersey Law Prohibits Discrimination Against Employees Who Display the U.S. Flag

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) prohibits discrimination on the basis of a wide range of factors. In late 2001, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill that adds display of the American flag to the list of protected categories. The law allows for New Jersey employment discrimination lawsuits to be filed, but also provides a defense for employers and sanctions for claims that lack “substantial justification.” In the eighteen years since the bill became law, it does not appear that New Jersey courts have issued any published decisions. This leaves portions of the law’s language up to interpretation.

Flag Discrimination Under the NJLAD

The “flag discrimination” statute, N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12.6, prohibits discrimination against an employee “for displaying the American flag on the employee’s person or work station.” Employers could still enact general bans on the display of symbols in the workplace, or possibly even more specific policies that focus on particular symbols. The statute appears to address employers who single out employees.

The employer could be liable for actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs. Unlike other discrimination claims under the NJLAD, an employee who brings a flag discrimination claim “without substantial justification” could be liable for the employer’s attorney’s fees and court costs.

June 22, 2020

U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Title VII Prohibits LGBTQ Discrimination in Employment

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on June 15, 2020 regarding employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or gender expression. Many state laws, including the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination include both of these as separate categories in addition to sex or gender. While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not expressly include either, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia holds that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes both categories. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion applies textual analysis to Title VII to determine that an employer that fires or otherwise discriminates against someone because of their sexual orientation, or because they are transgender, has discriminated against them because of sex. If you feel you have suffered discrimination on the basis of sex, it is recommended that you contact a New Jersey sex discrimination attorney as soon as possible.

Sex Discrimination Under Title VII

The meaning of “sex,” as used in Title VII, has grown over the years through both legislation and court decisions. Sex discrimination under Title VII includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy thanks to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. It has included sexual harassment since the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson.

The majority opinion in Bostock identified three decisions that also expanded the meaning of sex discrimination under Title VII:
– In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971), the court found that even though the employer hired more women than men overall, its policy against hiring mothers of young children violated Title VII.
– A requirement that women pay more into a pension fund than men because of longevity statistics constituted sex discrimination, according to the court’s ruling in Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart (1978).
– The court found that Title VII prohibits sexual harassment between members of the same sex in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998).

June 19, 2020

New Jersey Legislature Adds Employment Protections Medical Marijuana Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey has allowed medical marijuana use since 2009, when a bill originally known as the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA) became law. As written, the law did not specify how an individual’s use of medical marijuana would affect their employment. If an employer fires an employee because of their medical marijuana prescription, are they discriminating against the employee for the underlying medical condition? Is this unlawful disability discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD)?

Two events in the last year have made the situation clearer, at least at the state level. In 2019, the Legislature passed the Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act (CUMCA), which contains express protections for employees and replaces CUMMA. This year, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a claim for disability discrimination was possible under CUMMA. If your employment was recently terminated for having a medical marijuana prescription, it is important that you reach out to a New Jersey disability discrimination lawyer as soon as possible to discuss your legal options.

Ambiguity in the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act

Sections 8 and 16 of CUMMA, codified at N.J. Rev. Stat. §§ 24:6I-8 and 24:6I-14, left employers and employees uncertain about the rights of medical marijuana patients. Section 8 stated that the law does not permit anyone to operate a vehicle or perform certain other tasks “while under the influence of marijuana.” Section 16 stated that the statute did not “require…an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.” The statute made no mention of employees’ rights.

April 17, 2020

Court Rules in Favor of Employee in New Jersey Disability Discrimination Case Involving Medical Marijuana

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Medical marijuana use is legal to varying degrees in more than half of the states in the U.S., including New Jersey. The Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA), which was first enacted in 2009, allows individuals to purchase, possess, and use marijuana products under the direction of a physician. Prior to 2019, the text of the statute was rather ambiguous about how it impacted employees’ rights in the workplace. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled on a case that began in 2017, in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant fired him because of his lawful medical marijuana use, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The court affirmed a decision from the Appellate Division that allowed the case to go forward.

Two provisions of CUMMA appear to implicate employees’ rights. Section 8 of the statute states in part that the law does not allow an individual to operate any sort of vehicle or heavy machinery “while under the influence of marijuana.” Section 16 provides that the law does not require “an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.”

The LAD prohibits employers from firing an employee or subjecting them to other adverse or disparate treatment because of a disability. The statute defines “disability” to include “physical…mental, psychological or developmental disabilit[ies]” that are “demonstrable, medically or psychologically, by accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” The definition of “debilitating medical condition” provided by CUMMA overlaps with the LAD’s definition of “disability” in numerous areas.

January 16, 2020

New Jersey Passes Law Against Hairstyle Discrimination in the Workplace

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey joined several other states in prohibiting hairstyle discrimination in late 2019 when the Legislature passed the “Create a Respectful and Open Workspace for Natural Hair Act,” also known as the CROWN Act. The new law adds a definition of “race” to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) that specifically includes hairstyles historically or traditionally associated with particular racial groups. Many workplaces maintain dress codes or grooming policies that, whether intentional or not, discriminate against Black workers, such as by placing an extra burden on them in terms of how they maintain their hair. New York City issued guidance about race discrimination based on hairstyles in early 2019, and versions of the CROWN Act became law in New York State and California in July. New Jersey race discrimination law thus served as a model for other states to follow.

The NJLAD bars employers from discriminating on the basis of race and multiple other factors. N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12(a). The statute identifies certain actions as discriminatory, including refusing to hire someone, firing someone or requiring them to retire, or barring them from consideration for employment based on a protected category. Discrimination in the “terms, conditions or privileges of employment” also violates the NJLAD. Id. This may include employment policies or practices that favor or disfavor one group over another, or that impose additional burdens on a group of employees without a reasonable business-related justification. These types of practices can violate laws like the NJLAD even in the absence of discriminatory intent.

New York City’s guidance on hairstyle discrimination, issued in February 2019, offers a useful overview of how it can violate antidiscrimination laws. The document describes various “hair textures [that] are common among people of African descent,” and discusses how people may choose particular hairstyles for “cultural,…personal, financial, medical, religious, or spiritual reasons.” It also describes “protective style[s], intended to maintain hair health.” Discriminatory workplace policies that prohibit many of these hairstyles are often based on “a widespread and fundamentally racist belief that [they] are not suited for formal settings.” Such policies usually derive from “white and European beauty standards.”

January 3, 2020

New Law Bars New Jersey Employers from Asking Job Applicants About Salary History

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employers in New Jersey may no longer ask job applicants how much they made at their last job, thanks to a new law passed by the Legislature in June 2019 and signed by the Governor in July. The bill amends several provisions of New Jersey employment discrimination laws to prohibit employers from “screen[ing] a job applicant based on the applicant’s salary history.” Inquiries about salary history can offer employers a way around laws against pay discrimination, such as the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA). When an employer bases hiring or salary decisions on how much an applicant made at their previous job, it tends to perpetuate existing wage imbalances. As of December 2019, sixteen states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and multiple local governments have enacted laws prohibiting salary history inquiries to various degrees.

The EPA prohibits discrimination in pay on the basis of gender, meaning that employers must pay male and female employees the same for work that “requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility…under similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). It makes exceptions for different rates of pay based on seniority, merit, “quantity or quality of production,” or “a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” Id. Bans on salary history inquiries are partly motivated by concerns that past salary could fit into that last category. The status quo in the United States in late 2019 is that multiple wage gaps exist. People can argue over what causes these gaps, but their existence is difficult to dispute. Employment decisions based on salary history, regardless of an employer’s intent, can serve to entrench the disparities.

State laws governing salary history inquiries vary widely in what they prohibit and allow. Alabama, for example, passed a law around the same time as New Jersey that bars employers from making an adverse employment decision based solely on an applicant’s refusal to provide information on their salary history. It does not expressly prohibit employers from asking for such information. California’s law, enacted in 2017, bars employers from asking, and goes much further. Employers in California may not “rely on the salary history information of an applicant for employment” in either hiring or salary decisions, unless the applicant voluntarily discloses the information.

November 1, 2019

Lawsuit by New Jersey Grocery Store Employee Alleged Disability Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of disability. It also requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for employees with disabilities, in order to enable them to perform their job duties. A New Jersey disability discrimination lawsuit originally filed in the Superior Court of Bergen County alleged failure to accommodate against a grocery store. The employee was bitten on the arm by a venomous spider while at work, resulting in hospitalization. He alleged in the lawsuit that the employer failed to accommodate the “anxiety and panic attacks” that arose because of the experience, and that he was fired in violation of the NJLAD. The parties settled the suit shortly after its removal to federal court.

The term “disability,” as defined by the NJLAD, includes “any mental [or] psychological…disability…which prevents the normal exercise of any bodily or mental functions.” N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-5(q). Anxiety and panic disorders can be extremely debilitating for some individuals.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a guidance document in 1997 that addressed whether anxiety may qualify as a disability under federal law. Its conclusions do not control New Jersey state courts applying the NJLAD, but they may still offer some useful guidance. The EEOC offered an example of an employee whose anxiety disorder affected their “ability to concentrate.” Legal antidiscrimination protections would be available, the EEOC concluded, if the impact of the anxiety disorder is “long-term or potentially long-term, as opposed to temporary.”

October 25, 2019

Class Action Alleges Age Discrimination in Job Advertisements on Social Media

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is considered to be the primary federal antidiscrimination law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 also provides important protections for workers nationwide. Both the ADEA and New Jersey’s antidiscrimination statute prohibit employers from advertising job openings in ways that restrict eligibility on the basis of age. A pending federal class action against several major companies addresses a relatively new method of advertising. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants restricted the visibility of job advertisements on social media to users in certain age ranges. Several recent decisions by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) support the plaintiffs’ position that this violates the ADEA’s advertising restrictions.

The ADEA’s protections against age discrimination apply to workers who are at least forty years old. 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), on the other hand, does not set a minimum age but states that employers may “refus[e] to accept for employment or to promote” a person who is more than seventy years old. N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10-5:12(a). Both statutes prohibit the publication of job advertisements that demonstrate “any limitation, specification or discrimination” based on age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(e), N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12(c). Job listings that only purport to limit the eligibility of minors typically do not violate these statutes, since minors are subject to separate work restrictions. A job advertisement stating that a job is only open to applicants between the ages of eighteen and forty would violate both the ADE and the NJLAD.

In July 2019, the EEOC issued determination letters to seven companies based on charges filed under the ADEA. All of the charges alleged unlawful posting of job advertisements on the social media platform Facebook, which allows companies to target advertisements to certain audiences. The EEOC reported that it found evidence that the companies “used language to limit the age of individuals who were able to view the advertisement.” It notified the companies that it had found “reasonable cause to believe that [they] violated the ADEA.”