Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

by

Federal statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are widely-known and frequently invoked in cases of allegedly unlawful discrimination or harassment. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on a wide range of factors, including race, gender, and religion. Other statutes also protect workers from specific types of discrimination. The federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), for example, prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin or, in some cases, citizenship status. While the principal purpose of this statute is to protect United States citizens, it can also protect immigrants with employment authorization in many situations.

Section 274B of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, prohibits employers from discriminating in hiring or firing individuals, as well as other features or benefits of employment, based on national origin. For United States citizens and legally-admitted immigrants, the statute prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status. This includes anyone admitted as a legal permanent resident, also known as a green card, and anyone authorized by immigration authorities to work in the United States. The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) handles alleged discrimination in violation of the INA.

The law differs from other federal anti-discrimination laws in two important respects. First, it does not protect undocumented immigrants or immigrants without employment authorization. It also does not prohibit employers from giving U.S. citizens preference over non-citizens, provided the applicants are otherwise equally qualified. The statute specifically prohibits filing overlapping claims with the OSC and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which investigates alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act.
Continue reading

by

The New Jersey Superior Court recently overturned a lower court’s summary decision dismissing the plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination on the basis of her voluntary admission of alcoholism.Our New Jersey employment lawyers know it is a little-known fact that alcoholism is considered a disability, both under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. What this means is that you cannot be discriminated or retaliated against by your employer for seeking substance abuse treatment or for simply admitting you are an alcoholic or a drug addict.

This may not summarily protect your position if you show up for work intoxicated, if your job performance is poor or if you are putting others at risk. But in this case, the long-term employee was performing well and had no disciplinary issues. What’s more, the company’s internal policy on which her termination was based was found by the state’s Superior Court to be “facially discriminatory,” though the company vehemently defended it.

The case, A.D.P. v. Exxonmobil Research and Engineering Company, originated with a voluntary admission from the employee to her employer that she was an alcoholic and was in an inpatient rehabilitation center receiving treatment. This admission was not the result of an inquiry or pressure from the employer based on poor job performance. In fact, she was performing quite well. Regardless, the company, by its own policy, subsequently required the employee to undergo regular alcohol testing in the form of breathalyzer tests and mandated that she sign an agreement pledging to abstain from alcohol.

When the employee in turn failed a random breathalyzer test, she was fired.

The Superior Court found that because the employee’s required breathalyzer test was based not on job performance or imposed on every employee regardless of disability, the employer in fact was engaging in discrimination.

The court underscored the fact that the employer had not made her sign this agreement as part of a “last chance agreement,” which might have been extended to an employee on shaky ground stemming from poor performance due to alcoholism. The employee was not the subject of any pending disciplinary action or internal investigation. In fact, managers for the defendant testified that the employee’s work was exemplary, and that the tests were mandated on factors other than her job performance.

Therefore, the court ruled, it was discriminatory.

N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 outlines that employers may not terminate a defendant on the basis of a disability. As alcoholism is a disability, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for alcoholics.

Because substance abuse is not widely accepted as a legitimate illness, many employers may not understand their responsibilities under the reasonable accommodations requirement. It doesn’t mean, for example, that an employer has to tolerate it if you come in late to work on a Monday or leave early on a Friday in order to binge. It does, however, mean the employer can’t target you for discipline because you sought substance abuse treatment or you had to leave a little early to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Reasonable accommodation means an employer has to be willing to work with you on these matters, so long as it does not create an undue hardship.
Continue reading

by

By signing into law new posting requirements aimed at combating pay and gender discrimination, Gov. Chris Christie advanced the fight for equal pay in the workforce.

Under the new law, companies that employ more than 50 people must post gender equality information in the workplace. This information must also be provided to employees at the time of hire, annually thereafter, and upon an employee’s request.The law is scheduled to take effect Nov. 21 and employers will have 30 days to comply once the New Jersey Department of Labor issues notice.

However, our NJ employment lawyers understand there is much work left to be done. Employees, particularly women, must remain vigilant in making sure they are fairly compensated, particularly in relation to men holding similar positions within the company.

Christie vetoed a measure that would have increased the reporting requirements for public contractors in an effort to better determine and enforce compliance. Those doing business within New Jersey would have been required to report gender, job title, occupational category, race and total compensation to the New Jersey Department of Labor.

“When Gov. Chris Christie had a chance to sign legislation I authored to prevent gender wage discrimination in public contracts, he vetoed the bill, calling it ‘senseless bureaucracy,'” wrote Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt (D-Camden/Burlington), in the Star-Ledger. Lampitt is also chairwoman of the Assembly’s Women and Children Committee.

Christie said it would have been burdensome and would have ultimately driven up the cost of public contracts paid for by tax dollars.

However, fact remain that women continue to fight for the equal pay owed them for equal work; this remains particularly true for jobs traditionally held by men. Lampitt notes a nationwide annual gender wage gap of $15.8 billion. In New Jersey, women earn just 79 cents for every dollar a man earns in the workforce.

Christie returned two New Jersey employment discrimination bills to the legislature for significant amendments.

The first would have eliminated the statute of limitations for bringing compensation discrimination claims. The Christie Administration contends that asserting into the bill limitations on the amount of backpay that can be recover would bring it into better agreement with the holdings of the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The governor proposed a two-year limit.

The next measure would have prohibited retaliation against employees requesting pay information. The governor recommended the provisions be included in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination rather than being made part of NJ’s whistleblower law.

Establishing whistleblower protections is a key component that must be part of any real solution. The secrecy around pay in the workforce is one one the primary reasons why this form of silent discrimination is allowed to continue. Until employees who have reason to believe they are being paid unfairly are given access to compensation information, such discrepancies in pay will remain commonplace.
Continue reading

by

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a discrimination lawsuit in New Jersey against State Police on behalf of the Latino Leadership Alliance. The group is seeking access and information regarding promotion policies, The Inquirer reported.

The chairman of the group, which describes itself as a coalition of community organizations, says he is a former police officer looking to ensure that there is no “disparate treatment of minorities,” according to the lawsuit.State police denied a state Open Public Records Request last month, saying the request was “improper and overbroad.” The ACLU asserts police are permitted to keep individual employment records private but not general employment policies.

The ACLU is accusing state police of a culture of secrecy, saying it’s the third public records request the agency has denied in recent months. For their part, state police are pointing to a recently adopted rule by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, which permits police to withhold “standard operating procedures” from public view. The new regulation was first adopted in December 2011; the Attorney General’s Office had previously said the rules would not be used to exempt general polices and procedures.

Yet it’s been used to deny this request by the Latino Leadership Alliance, which wanted to know if promotion policies favored one ethnic or racial group over another.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate in employment matters on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national orientation. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission statistics from 1997 to 2011 show charges filed under Title VII alleging race discrimination in the workplace have risen from 762 in 1997 to nearly 3,000 last year. Race-based charges have increased from 29,199 in 1997 to more than 35,000 last year.

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits employment discrimination in any job-related action — including hiring and promotion — on the basis of any of the law’s protected categories. Protected categories are: race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), marital status, domestic partnership or civil union status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information liability for military service, or mental or physical disability, including AIDS and HIV related illnesses.

Such discrimination is also forbidden in setting salary and benefits, making job assignments, in disciplinary actions and when reducing the workforce or otherwise conducting layoffs or terminations.

The law also protects employees from retaliation in the wake of making a good faith complaint about discrimination or harassment. Avenues for remedy include filing a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (which must be done with 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination) or pursuing a case through New Jersey Superior Court, typically with the assistance of an experienced New Jersey employment lawyer.
Continue reading

by

Sexual harassment lawsuits, filed by NJ sexual harassment lawyers on behalf of state workers, against state agencies is costing New Jersey millions, yet many of the offenders remain on the job or have retired with lucrative pensions, according to an investigation by the Asbury Park Press.

A cadet at the state’s corrections officer academy said she was subjected to offensive obscenities, inappropriate touching my male instructors, sex and gender discrimination and on-the-job retaliation in the wake of complaints to superiors. Fed up, she sued in 2005 and agreed to settle the case last year for $415,000. She now works as a senior corrections officer at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton.Despite millions in settlements, most agencies refuse to discuss the issue — citing either ongoing litigation or private personnel issues not subject to disclosure. However, the newspaper’s investigation found many state employees or supervisors who have been named in the lawsuits either continue to work for the state or have retired with generous pensions. Many of the employee complaints allege the harassment has been occurring for years, according to the Park Press.

Whether in the private or public sector, failure to adequately deal with employees who violate sexual harassment policy ensures that the company remains exposed to such lawsuits and that employees remain exposed to unlawful conduct in the workplace.

The New Jersey Civil Service Commission reports nearly 1,000 state employees have filed sexual harassment lawsuits in the last 5 years. In recent years, 27 lawsuits have been settled for a total of $3.9 million. The average settlement is $145,000. In fact, the number of sexual harassment complaints in New Jersey has increased by 10 percent since 2006, even as the number of complaints nationwide has dropped by 5.5 percent.

The State of New Jersey has had a sexual harassment policy on the books since 1993 and all of the state’s 74,000 employees are required to take training courses aimed at preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Sexual harassment which creates a hostile work environment is when an employee endures sexually abusive or offensive behavior and does not have to include physical contact. Quid pro quo sexual harassment is when an employer demands sexual favors as a condition of continued employment or advancement.

A total of 78 complaints involving state workers have been filed this year through Sept. 12.

Ironically, most of the settlements involved state agencies entrusted with enforcing the law. The State Department of Law and Public Safety was responsible for more than $1 million in settlements — the highest dollar amount of any agency. Other agencies included state courts, the Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program and the Department of Corrections.

A spokesman for the state Attorney General said state agencies thoroughly investigate complaints and that disciplinary action can include reprimand, demotion, suspension or termination.
Continue reading

by

A former Ph.D student and staff associate at Columbia University filed a lawsuit claiming the school mishandled his complaint of sexual harassment by the student’s lab supervisor, and then wrongfully terminated the victim.

Unfortunately, firing a victim is not an uncommon result when an employee alleges a violation of workplace rights. New York City employment attorneys also know that sexual harassment is common in the university environment and may involve professors, staff or students.The plaintiff arrived from Chile last March to pursue his Ph.D. while working at the University. But, over the course of about three months, he contends he was sexually harassed by his supervisor, ignored by a university human resources officer, and ultimately fired from his dream job.

Typically, a supervisor-employee relationship is exploited in cases of sexual harassment. The university setting, as well as internship positions, can be ripe for such abuse because students want to please superiors and to excel. In this case the 25-year-old victim, who worked at the University while pursuing his Ph.D., contends in his lawsuit that he suffered retaliation after he complained of being sexually harassed by his supervisor, a professor of medicine, nephrology and hypertension at the Columbia University Medical Center.

According to the lawsuit, the victim had been at the university just a few days when he received a cell phone solicitation about dating older gay or bisexual men. The complaint charges that the supervisor sent the plaintiff messages via a social network, with the supervisor’s picture attached, asking the plaintiff “if he would like to date an older man.” After rejecting his supervisor’s online sexual advance, the lawsuit maintains, the plaintiff’s supervisor allegedly “came out of his office, approached Plaintiff….and screamed at him, ‘You are out!'”

The victim reported the harassment to another supervisor, who allegedly promised to talk with Columbia’s Chair of the Department of Medicine, and directed the plaintiff to human resources, according to the lawsuit. The victim contends that the university’s human resources representative offered to help file a formal complaint with Columbia’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, which is charged with investigating allegations of harassment or discrimination against university faculty and staff. He said the supervisor later apologized for the ongoing behavior, gave him an expensive computer, and allegedly told him to “pretend that nothing happened.”

In June, the lawsuit maintains, the Ph.D student was subsequently fired without notice or explanation, according to the allegations contained in the lawsuit. The university has declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

These cases are often a victim’s word against a superior’s. Any evidence or documentation of such behavior can go a long way toward proving a victim’s claim. In this case, the Columbia Spectator (the university’s student newspaper) reports that it reviewed detailed evidence gathered by the victim, including e-mails and text messages.

A law firm experienced in workplace harassment litigation will also review an employer or university’s track record of past allegations and its response to employment discrimination and workplace harassment complaints.

While still relatively rare, an increasing number of cases involving male-on-male sexual harassment are being reported. In fact, more than 16 percent of sexual harassment cases were filed by men in 2011, compared to 11.6 percent in 1997, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Both state and federal employment laws prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee for making a complaint. In 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided in Carmona v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc. that in order to be protected under the law a victim must have an underlying complaint of discrimination that is reasonable and made in good faith.

In this case, the victim will apparently be forced to return to Chile because of a lack of funds because Columbia terminated his employment after he complainted about being sexually harassed. In general, it is a good idea for those who believe they are being harassed or discriminated against at work to seek the advice of an experienced employment law firm in New York or New Jersey at the earliest stages of such cases. Very frequently the culture in institutions where this behavior is allowed to thrive is such that significant legal protection — either before or after lodging a complaint — is not likely without the help of an experienced law firm.
Continue reading

by

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (“DCR”) recently announced that a Bergen County school district has agreed to pay $90,000 to settle claims that it failed to reasonably accommodate a former employee’s disability and then retaliated against her for her complaint of disability discrimination.

Maria Osnowitz was a teacher’s aide for the West New York Board of Education. She suffers from knee injuries that impair her mobility. For the most part, she utilizes a motorized wheelchair or scooter to get around. When walking is necessary, she utilizes two canes.

In her first DCR Complaint, Ms. Osnowitz alleged that West New York Board of Education failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, she alleged that, because of her disability, she requested to park her car in a covered parking area close to the entrance of the school where she worked, but that the school principal refused to allow her to do so. In addition, she alleged that the school repeatedly held meetings — and required her attendance — at locations that were not wheelchair-accessible. She further alleged that she requested that the meeting locations be changed, but that the school refused to do so.
Continue reading

by

As New York employment lawyers, we know first-hand that employment discrimination comes in many shapes and sizes. But, is the hourglass one of them?

That question has recently been raised by Lauren Odes, a woman who filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging gender discrimination and religious discrimination against her employer, Native Intimates, in New York. Native Intimates is a lingerie wholesaler that allegedly fired Lauren Odes because she was “just too hot for this office.”
Continue reading

by

From the classroom to the break room, bullying is a term that has become ubiquitous over the past several years, and the need for legislation to protect employees from this particular type of behavior has become all the more evident. While current employment laws provide employees protection from discrimination, sexual harassment, other harassment, and a hostile work environment, there is no law that protects employees against the abuses that result from bullying. In order to address this gap in the employment law, the New Jersey Healthy Workplace Bill was submitted to the Senate Labor Committee earlier this year. The Bill goes a step further than the current employment discrimination laws by providing redress to employees who are the victims of abusive conduct, regardless of age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or any other protected class for that matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x92tBd9jkvo

Continue reading

by

On March 29, 2012, the Appellate Division held, in Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center, et al., A-4914-09T1 (N.J. App. Div. Mar. 29, 2012), that an employer, Liberty Anesthesia Associates, LLC (“Liberty”), was equitably estopped from enforcing an arbitration clause contained in an employment contract. Because Liberty actively participated in the litigation — and opted to wait until three days before trial to first invoke the arbitration clause — the Court reasoned that Liberty had “voluntarily and intentionally decided to relinquish its right to arbitration as a forum to adjudicate plaintiff’s claims as a matter of litigation strategy.” Plaintiff, who is represented by New Jersey employment lawyers at the Resnick Law Group, will indeed have her day in court on her claims that the wrongful termination of her employment as a nurse anesthetist violated the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).
Continue reading

Contact Information
New Jersey Office
5 Becker Farm Rd, Suite 410
Roseland, NJ 07068
Tel: (973) 781-1204
New York Office
535 5th Ave 4th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (646) 867-7997
This website constitutes an ADVERTISEMENT. Before making your choice of attorney, you should give this matter careful thought. The selection of an attorney is an important decision. If you believe this advertisement is inaccurate or misleading, you may report same to the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Hughes Justice Complex, CN 037, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. For the comparison standards employed by Super Lawyers, please visit superlawyers.com. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Resnick Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design