Articles Posted in Retaliation

by

A New Jersey law that is scheduled to take effect on October 1 will require public and private employers with 25 or more employees to grant job-protected leave to the victims and certain family members of sexually violent and domestic violence offenses. The New Jersey Security and Financial Empowerment Act (SAFE Act) provides workers with up to 20 days of unpaid leave in any 12-month period. Leave may be taken in order to seek medical treatment, obtain assistance from a victim services organization, seek psychological counseling, speak with an attorney, attend or prepare for court proceedings, and take specified safety actions such as relocating.

In order to utilize the provisions of the Act, an employee must have worked at least 1,000 hours during the preceding year and all leave must be used in the 12 months immediately following the reported act of violence. Where possible, workers who take leave pursuant to the SAFE Act are required to provide their employer with advance written notice. All SAFE Act leave must be taken in increments of one day and any leave must be taken concurrently with leave requested under the New Jersey Family Leave Act and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act where applicable. Additionally, a New Jersey employer may request documentation related to the act of violence. Such documentation must be maintained in a confidential manner and may not be disseminated without the express written permission of the employee.

The provisions of the SAFE Act prohibit an employer from harassing, terminating, discriminating against, or engaging in retaliation against a worker who takes leave under the new law. If an employer violates this requirement, a worker may file a civil lawsuit against the company within one year of the alleged incident. An employee who suffered discrimination or retaliation for taking leave pursuant to the SAFE Act may be eligible to receive compensation for lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and other damages. In addition, an employer who violates the Act may be subject to a significant civil fine.
Continue reading

by

Increasingly, Americans are utilizing social media accounts like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, and more both on and off the job. In recent years, a growing number of employers have reportedly asked workers and job applicants for access to their personal social media accounts as a condition of employment. In response to this practice, Governor Chris Christie recently signed into law a bill that prohibits New Jersey employers from requesting access to the personal social media accounts of workers or job candidates.

Companies who violate the new social media law will be subject to a $1,000 fine for the first offense and a $2,500 fine for each additional offense. The measure also allows employees and applicants the option to seek financial compensation for lost earnings from an employer who violates the law. Additionally, employers may not require a job candidate to waive any of the protections of the law as a condition of hiring, and they may not retaliate against a worker for exercising any rights guaranteed by the legislation.

The measure, which goes into effect on December 1st, does not apply to employer policies related to use of company-issued electronic devices such as laptops and smartphones. Also, employers are not prohibited from viewing employee or candidate information that is generally available to the public. State and local law enforcement agencies are not required to adhere to the provisions of the new law.
Continue reading

by

A former fashion model has filed suit against a major designer for alleged misappropriation of his likeness, claiming that it reused photographs taken of him more than a decade ago without his consent. Hamideh v. Dolce & Gabbana S.r.L., et al, No. BC502164, complaint (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Co., Mar. 4, 2013). In addition to the intellectual property claims, the plaintiff is asserting a claim related to breach of contract, seeking restitution for commercial benefits the defendant allegedly received from the use of his pictures. The case resembles situations faced by employees who contribute intellectual property to an employer, and who may continue to have rights to that intellectual property even after their employment ends.

According to the plaintiff’s complaint, Dolce & Gabbana (D&G), an Italian company known for high-end fashion, hired the plaintiff in 2002 for an advertising campaign. He was the featured male model of the campaign, appearing alongside world-famous female model Giselle Bundchen. D&G’s rights to the plaintiff’s likeness allegedly expired at the end of 2003. The plaintiff alleges that, in May 2012, D&G published photos of him taken for the campaign in 2002 without his permission. He claims that D&G did so “for the purpose of advertising [its] products and promoting [its] brand.” Hamideh, complaint at 4.
Continue reading

by

The New Jersey Legislature passed a bill in March 2013 that, if signed by the Governor, will be one of the strongest laws in the country protecting employees against online snooping by employers. Some employers have taken to requesting passwords or other access to social media accounts like Facebook from their employees, or as part of the job application process. At least five other states already have laws prohibiting employers from requiring employees to provide their passwords to their social media accounts. More than half of all U.S. states are reportedly considering such legislation.

The bill, A2878, was introduced in the New Jersey General Assembly on May 10, 2012, and first passed the Assembly on June 25. The New Jersey Senate passed an amended version of the bill, by a vote of 28-0, in October. The Assembly then passed the amended bill, with seventy-five voting in favor and two voting against, on March 21, 2013. The final bill applies to all employers in the state except for state and local law enforcement agencies. Earlier drafts also governed educational institutions.

Employers, the bill states, may not “require or request” any passwords or other form of access to an employee’s or job applicant’s personal social media or email accounts. It further prohibits employers from requiring employees or job applicants to disclose whether or not they have personal accounts on social media sites. An earlier version of the bill would have barred employers from even asking if an employee or applicant has such an account. Employers may not require a person to waive any of the protections of this bill as a condition of hiring, and they may not retaliate against an employee for exercising any rights guaranteed by the bill.
Continue reading

by

A college professor is suing the college where she teaches for gender and race discrimination, alleging that the administration prevented her from advancing on the tenure track at the same rate as her colleagues. Wang v. Macalester College, No. 62-CV-12-9750 (Minn. Civ. Ct. – Ramsey Co., Dec. 21, 2012). She further claims that, after denying her requests for promotion, the college retaliated against her for speaking out about it.

Wang Ping, the plaintiff, is a professor of English at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. A native of China, she began working at Macalester in 1999 after getting a doctorate from New York University. She became an assistant professor in the English department in 2001. According to her complaint, she requested promotion to associate professor in 2003, but was denied. She finally made associate professor in 2005. A committee denied her request for promotion to full professor in 2009, allegedly stating that her academic record “did not meet the high standard for promotion to full professor.” After she reported the matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Wang alleges, the college retaliated against her by “refusing to facilitate her projects.” She received a promotion to full professor in 2012.
Continue reading

by

A former employee of a Secaucus, New Jersey furniture store chain has alleging that management discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation and retaliated against her for complaining of a manager’s discriminatory conduct. Perez v. Factory Direct of Secaucus, LLC, et al, No. 2:13-cv-00327, complaint (D.N.J., Jan. 17, 2013). The lawsuit currently claims violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. An investigation of employment discrimination claims is still underway by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the plaintiff has stated an intent to amend her complaint should the EEOC authorize her to do so.

The plaintiff, Isabel Perez, began working for the defendant, Factory Direct of Secaucus, which operates several Ashley Furniture HomeStore locations, on September 25, 2012. In her position as human resources director, she reported to the defendant Kathy Martin, the Director of People Services and Development, and defendant Eugene Chrinian, the CEO. Perez alleges that, during the interview process for the position with both Martin and Chrinian, both defendants questioned her extensively about her marital status and her religious beliefs. Perez, who is homosexual, preferred to keep such issues private, although she did discuss her religious beliefs briefly.

Perez alleges that Martin made frequent derogatory remarks in her presence about homosexuals, as well as discriminatory remarks about other employees based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or appearance. Perez claims that she brought up her concerns with Martin about Martin’s derogatory comments to employees, as well as Martin’s invocation of her religious beliefs in routine workplace issues. On at least one occasion, Martin allegedly told Perez “to be more understanding of the Company’s ‘culture.'” Complaint at 6. Martin began most meetings with prayers, Perez claims, including “unsolicited ‘laying of the hands’ on [Perez].” Id.
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

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 © 2024, Resnick Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design