Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

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).

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.”

Continue reading

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.”

Continue reading

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is a groundbreaking law that protects the rights of people with disabilities in the workplace and in many public businesses. Employers may not discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of a covered disability, and they may be required to provide “reasonable accommodations” to allow employees to perform their job duties. The statute also bars employers in many circumstances from requiring medical examinations, or making other inquiries regarding medical conditions. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes New Jersey, recently ruled on a disability discrimination claim that included alleged violations of the ADA provisions regarding reasonable accommodations and medical inquiries. The court reversed a lower court order dismissing those claims, allowing them to move forward. If you feel your employer is not providing reasonable accommodations in light of your medical condition, it may be to your advantage to contact a New Jersey disability discrimination attorney.

In order for a person to establish that they have a “disability” under the ADA, they must show that their impairment “substantially limits one or more major life activities,” or that they are “regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A), (C). A “reasonable accommodation” might include physically modifying the work environment or making adjustments to work schedules. See id. at § 12111(9). An employer commits unlawful disability discrimination when, without establishing that doing so would “impose an undue hardship,” they fail to provide a reasonable accommodation to a qualified employee. Id. at § 12112(b)(5)(A).

Employers may not require employees to undergo medical examinations, nor may they inquire about employees’ medical history or medical conditions, except as specifically authorized by the statutes. The ADA specifically prohibits medical examinations or inquiries intended to determine whether an employee has a disability, or to ascertain “the nature or severity of the disability,” except when an employer can show that it is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” Id. at § 12112(d)(4)(A).

Continue reading

Race discrimination in employment can take many forms. Sometimes an employer commits an adverse act against an employee that is unambiguously based on that employee’s race, but it is usually that obvious. Employment policies that do not appear to be motivated by any sort of racial animus, can still have a substantially disproportionate impact on employees of certain races. Workplace dress codes and grooming standards, for example, can reinforce racial discrimination by placing undue burdens on people who identify as African American or Black. These policies often, without a clear business justification, prohibit Black employees from wearing their hair in certain common hairstyles, including natural hairstyles. New York City issued guidelines in early 2019 about hairstyle discrimination. The state legislatures in California and New York later enacted laws adding hairstyle discrimination to state law definitions of race discrimination. A bill currently pending in the New Jersey Legislature would make similar changes to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). If you are concerned that your hairstyle may be related to a dispute you are having at work, reach out to a New Jersey employment discrimination lawyer today.

Employment discrimination on the basis of race is prohibited under the NJLAD. N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12(a). The statute does not currently provide a definition for “race.” It relies on common usage, but even in everyday conversation, the word “race” is fraught with subtext. Dictionary definitions like “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits” do not capture the full meaning of the term. New York City sought to address this lack of detail in its antidiscrimination law by focusing on hairstyle discrimination.

In February 2019, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (CHR) published guidelines on “race discrimination on the basis of hair.” It described this as “discrimination based on characteristics and cultural practices associated with being Black.” The term “Black,” as used by the CHR, includes people who identify as African or African American, as well as people with Afro-Caribbean and Afro-Latinx heritage. Workplace dress codes and grooming standards “are often rooted in white standards of appearance,” the CHR stated, and contribute to perceptions “that Black hairstyles are unprofessional.” Many such policies do not allow Black employees to maintain natural hairstyles. This requires them to undergo treatments to straighten their hair that are both expensive and damaging.

Continue reading