The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

February 24, 2022

New Jersey Law Prohibits Employment Discrimination Based on Tobacco Use

New Jersey’s employment laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees and job applicants on the basis of a wide range of factors. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination provides the broadest protection against numerous discriminatory acts and policies, such as race discrimination or sexual harassment. Other state laws bar employers from discriminating on the basis of other factors. New Jersey’s “Smokers’ Rights Act” (SRA), enacted in 1991, addresses discrimination by employers because an employee uses — or declines to use — tobacco products. Other areas of state law restrict smoking in workplaces, so the SRA mainly addresses employers who seek to penalize employees for behavior outside of work.

The SRA states that an employer may not refuse to hire someone, fire them, or “take any adverse action…with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or other privileges of employment” because that person “does or does not smoke or use other tobacco products.” The statute makes an exception for situations when an employer has a “rational basis” for an act that would otherwise be unlawful. This “rational basis” must be “reasonably related to the employment.” When legislators use vague language like this, it is often up to the courts to determine what is “rational” and “reasonable.”

The protections provided by the SRA do not override other state laws addressing tobacco use in public. They also may not conflict with employment policies that limit or prohibit smoking in the workplace during work hours. A law passed by the New Jersey Legislature in 2005, for example, effectively bans smoking in all workplaces throughout the state. The SRA is similar to the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA). This statute allows recreational cannabis use and, with some exceptions, bars employment discrimination based on cannabis use outside of work. They are both relatively unexplored areas of New Jersey employment discrimination law.
Continue reading

February 11, 2022

New Law Protects New Jersey Hotel Workers’ Jobs After Change in Ownership or Management

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey is an “at-will employment” state, meaning that employers may fire employees for any lawful reason, or for no reason at all, without necessarily having to show good cause. Note that employers are limited to “lawful” reasons for firing someone. New Jersey employment laws and those at the federal level protect workers from termination for a variety of unlawful reasons. Under a new law passed by the New Jersey Legislature and signed by the governor in January 2022, hotels in New Jersey may not fire any employees for a defined period of time after a change in ownership. The new law allows aggrieved employees to file suit for damages.

Numerous New Jersey laws bar wrongful termination by employers. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), for example, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and job applicants on the basis of protected factors like race, gender, religion, and others. Firing someone because of their membership in a protected class is considered unlawful discrimination.

The NJLAD also bars employers from firing someone in retaliation for reporting alleged workplace discrimination. The Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) protects workers who report other types of unlawful activity, commonly known as whistleblowers. Employers may not fire whistleblowers or take other retaliatory actions towards them.
Continue reading

February 4, 2022

New Law Will Prohibit New Jersey Employers from Using Tracking Devices in Vehicles Without Notifying Employees

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employees’ privacy rights are becoming an increasingly important issue. When many people began working from home because of the COVID-19 pandemic, questions arose about how much their employers could monitor their activities. Even before then, some employers were using potentially intrusive technologies to collect data about their employees. New Jersey’s governor recently signed a bill that will address one type of technology that employers might use to track employees. The new law requires employers to notify an employee before using any sort of device to track the movements of a vehicle driven by that employee. While the bill originally imposed criminal penalties on employers, the final version uses civil penalties instead.

Current New Jersey employment law provides a patchwork of privacy protections for employees. A law passed in 2013, for example, bars employers from requiring employees and job applicants to provide user names or passwords for “personal accounts,” including email and social media accounts that are not connected to those individuals’ employment. At the federal level, the Americans with Disabilities Act restricts the types of questions employers may ask about employees’ health and health history.

The new law, A3950, was signed by the governor on January 18, 2022. It takes effect on April 18. The law deals with the use of “electronic communications devices” and “tracking devices” in vehicles. Employers may want to track the movements of vehicles operated by employees during work hours for a variety of legitimate reasons, including simply wanting to confirm that employees are working during those hours. The sheer amount of tracking technology available now, however, has led to substantial privacy concerns.
Continue reading

January 28, 2022

Federal COVID Vaccine Mandate Struck Down, but Still Applies to Healthcare Workers in New Jersey

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The question of mandatory vaccinations for COVID-19 has proven to be quite controversial over the past year. In late 2021, the White House directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop a rule requiring all employers with one hundred or more employees to require vaccination against COVID. Lawsuits soon followed challenging OSHA’s authority to do this. The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed several lower court orders staying this rule. At the same time, it upheld a rule from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring many healthcare workers to get vaccinated. New Jersey healthcare workers are also subject to a series of executive orders from the governor regarding vaccination.

Vaccination mandates are not a new concept in the U.S. The Supreme Court affirmed state laws requiring vaccination against smallpox in 1905 in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, governments throughout the U.S. have largely left it to employers to decide whether to require their employers to get vaccinated, or they have left the decision to individuals.

Many states require healthcare workers to get vaccinated against COVID. Prior to the pandemic, New Jersey enacted a law requiring employees of hospitals, nursing homes, and home health care agencies to get an annual flu vaccine. The state legislature has not passed any laws requiring COVID vaccinations, but the governor has taken action. In August 2021, Governor Phil Murphy issued the first of several executive orders requiring employees of certain healthcare facilities to get the COVID vaccine. He issued a new order on January 19, 2022, expanding the scope of the prior orders.
Continue reading

January 21, 2022

New Jersey Amends Protections Against Age Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Federal and state laws in New Jersey protect workers from discrimination on the basis of age, with some important limitations. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) sets a minimum age for workers, as well as a minimum number of employees before the statute covers an employer. Until recently, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) set a maximum age for protection from certain discriminatory acts based on age. A bill passed in late 2021 amends the NJLAD and other provisions of state law to expand the scope of age discrimination protection. It removed the maximum age and added new a new cause of action for employees. If you feel you have been discriminated against on the basis of your age, it would be worth your while to consult with a New Jersey employment discrimination lawyer at your earliest convenience.

Prior to late 2021, both the ADEA and the NJLAD set age limits for their provisions regarding age discrimination. The ADEA prohibits discrimination on the basis of age against people who are at least forty years old. A thirty-year-old individual fired because of their age, whether the employer considered them too young or too old, would therefore not be able to assert a cause of action. The statute also only applies to employers with twenty or more employees, so a fifty-year-old employee of a business with ten employees would also not have a claim under the ADEA.

The NJLAD, before its recent amendment, prohibited discrimination on the basis of age without regard to the total number of employees. It set no minimum age, so the hypothetical thirty-year-old worker would be able to make a claim. It set a maximum age, however, of seventy years. Specifically, it stated that the prohibition on age discrimination did not prevent employers “from refusing to accept for employment or to promote” a person over the age of seventy. This provided employers with a safe harbor for certain forms of age discrimination against older workers.
Continue reading

January 14, 2022

“Unconscious Bias” and “Conscious Exclusion” in New Jersey Employment Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Unlawful sex discrimination takes many forms in New Jersey workplaces. Overt discrimination, such as when an employer directly states an intention not to hire individuals of one gender, might not be as common as it once was, if only because it is less socially acceptable in the 21st century. It persists, though, in both blatant and subtle forms. Sex discrimination can also occur when a policy or practice disproportionately affects people of one gender, even if the employer has no intent to discriminate. The Harvard Business Review (HBR) recently published a study that examines these two forms of sex discrimination, calling them “conscious exclusion” and “unconscious bias.” The study offers some useful observations for New Jersey workers.

Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as interpreted by the courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), bars employers from engaging in disparate treatment based on a protected category. It also bars them from maintaining policies or practices that have a disparate impact on employees in a protected category. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination has similar provisions.

“Disparate treatment” consists of overt acts of discrimination and other acts or omissions that directly affect someone based on their sex or another protected category. Examples include refusing to hire someone because of gender, promoting employees of one gender over employees of another without regard to qualifications or merit, and the various forms of sexual harassment.

January 10, 2022

Employment Discrimination Based on Salary History in New Jersey

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) bars employers from discriminating against employees and job applicants on the basis of many different factors. Despite these protections, ongoing inequalities continue to create disadvantages for many people. The use of salary history is one way that employers might — even unintentionally — perpetuate systems of discrimination. The New Jersey Legislature amended the NJLAD and other areas of state law a few years ago to address this concern. The new law limits how employers may use salary history in the hiring process with regard to members of any “protected class” under the NJLAD. If you feel you have been discriminated against over salary history issues, it would be a good idea to consult with a New Jersey employment discrimination lawyer.

Protected Classes Under the NJLAD

Section 11(a) of the NJLAD identifies eighteen protected classes. These include race, sex, religion, national origin, pregnancy, disability, ongoing military service, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression. Employers may not discriminate on the basis of any of these factors.

Unequal Pay Under the NJLAD

In § 11(t), the NJLAD specifically addresses unequal pay. It prohibits employers from paying employees who belong to a protected class less than other employees.
Continue reading

January 3, 2022

DOJ Settles Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Against New Jersey Rail Service

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Two federal laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008, protect employees from discrimination on the basis of disability. Part of this protection involves prohibiting inquiries into employees’ medical histories that are not specifically related to those employees’ jobs. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that it had settled claims against a New Jersey rail line for allegedly conducting medical examinations and requesting health information from employees in violation of both statutes. If you have been subjected to disability discrimination in the workplace, reach out to a New Jersey employment lawyer as soon as possible.

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and job applicants on the basis of disability. Employers may not require medical examinations of job applicants or employees under the ADA, except to ask about or assess their ability to perform specific job duties. They may require a medical examination for new hires if the examination is the same for every new employee in the same category “regardless of disability.” The ADA allows mandatory medical examinations of employees if they are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” All other medical examinations or inquiries are prohibited.

GINA protects employees’ and job applicants’ “genetic information,” which it defines as information obtained from genetic tests an individual or their family members, as well as “the manifestation of a disease or disorder” in the individual’s family members. Employers may not request genetic information from employees or job applicants, nor may they request or obtain such information from any third party, except in specific situations. Exceptions include authorization by the employee or job applicant; publicly-available information in a newspaper or book; and “genetic monitoring of the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace,” provided that the employer has notified the employee and obtained their written consent.
Continue reading

December 21, 2021

Employment Lawsuit Claims Retaliation by New Jersey School District for Reporting Alleged Harassment

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) provides a wide range of protections for employees and job seekers. It prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of factors like race, sex, religion, disability, and more. It also addresses retaliation against employees who report alleged discrimination or harassment, either within the company or to a government agency like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). A lawsuit filed in a New Jersey court in the fall of 2021 alleges, in part, that the plaintiff’s employer unlawfully retaliated against her because she reported an incident of alleged sexual harassment. If you are facing retaliation for reporting harassment, please reach out to a New Jersey employment lawyer at your earliest convenience.

The NJLAD and other employment laws view sexual harassment as a type of sex discrimination. When one or more people in the workplace engage in harassment based on sex, such as by making bawdy jokes or inappropriate sexual comments, their conduct could violate the law. Harassment creates an unlawful hostile work environment, according to the EEOC, when it is “severe or pervasive enough…that a reasonable person would consider [it] intimidating, hostile, or abusive.” In order for an employer to be liable for sexual harassment, they must have been aware of the problem and failed to address it.

The EEOC notes that “petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents” might not “rise to the level of illegality.” A single incident can support a hostile work environment claim, but it must be quite severe. Many small incidents, on the other hand, can create a hostile work environment over time. Reporting concerns about workplace harassment is therefore very important and protected by the NJLAD.
Continue reading

December 9, 2021

New Jersey Lawsuit Alleges Sexual Harassment by Mortgage Lender Executives

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Unwelcome sexual remarks in the workplace can violate employment statutes in New Jersey that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. This kind of conduct becomes unlawful sexual harassment when it is so severe or pervasive that an objective observer would find it to be a hostile work environment. An employer may be liable for damages under laws like the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) when management is aware of the harassment but does not take reasonable steps to correct the situation. A lawsuit filed in September 2021 in a New Jersey state court alleges sexual harassment by several executives and others at a mortgage lender. If you have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace, you would be wise to consult with a New Jersey employment attorney as soon as possible.

The NJLAD prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, gender, and numerous other factors. Harassment on the basis of any protected category could violate the law, such as harassment of an employee because of their religion or religious attire. Sexual harassment is particularly insidious in workplaces around the country. The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination under federal law in a 1986 decision, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson.

The Meritor decision addressed “unwelcome sexual advances that create an offensive or hostile working environment,” and found that a plaintiff does not have to prove direct economic losses, such as a demotion or cut in pay, to establish that discrimination occurred. The impact of enduring a hostile work environment can be enough, the court held. The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the Meritor ruling in a 1993 decision addressing a hostile work environment claim under the NJLAD.
Continue reading