The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

August 8, 2024

Third Circuit Holds Job Applicant’s Discrimination Case Was Improperly Dismissed

Most New Jersey workers know that state and federal employment laws protect them from illegal discrimination. However, what fewer people know is that these very same laws also provide protection to job applications; that is, individuals who applied for an open position but were not selected for employment.

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an opinion in an age and disability discrimination case that highlights this longstanding principle. In the case, Porter v. Merakey, the court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of Porter’s claims, finding that the lower court applied incorrect legal principles.

The Facts of the Case

Porter had previously suffered an injury to his leg, which caused him to walk with a limp and required that he stretch his leg out straight while sitting. Eight years after his injury, at the age of 66, Porter applied for an open position at Merakey, a provider of behavioral health services. He met the minimum requirements for the job and was invited to interview for the position.

July 26, 2024

Federal Court Dismisses Attempt to Stop New EEOC Rule

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A new rule from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeks to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), but it has faced opposition. The PWFA fills an important gap in federal pregnancy discrimination law. New Jersey employment law has long required employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers who are pregnant, have recently given birth, or are dealing with medical conditions related to either pregnancy or childbirth. Federal law did not have this requirement, except for a possible interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The PWFA expressly requires reasonable accommodations in these circumstances. Several state attorneys general filed suit against the EEOC to blog the new PWFA rule based on the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion and related services. A federal court dismissed the lawsuit in June 2024, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. That lawsuit, however, is not the only challenge to the rule.

The PWFA took effect on June 27, 2023. The EEOC published its rule implementing the PWFA in the Federal Register on April 19, 2024. The rule broadly interprets the PWFA’s requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodations based on “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” It is similar to the ADA’s reasonable accommodations process, with some important differences. The rule places a fairly heavy burden on employers to accommodate workers’ needs.

Seventeen state attorneys general filed suit against the EEOC on April 25. They sought an injunction preventing the PWFA rule from taking effect. Much of their objections stemmed from the inclusion of abortion in the rule’s definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The rule would require employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees who have the procedure or are dealing with complications related to the procedure.
Continue reading

July 19, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Restricts NLRB’s Authority in Labor Disputes

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is an important tool for protecting workers from employers’ interference with efforts to organize and bargain collectively. Workers and unions may file complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has the authority to investigate alleged unlawful acts. If the NLRB believes an employer has acted unlawfully, it can take legal action. This includes seeking injunctions to prevent further NLRA violations while the claim for unfair labor practices proceeds. This can include reinstating employees after termination. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a dispute regarding what the NLRB needs to prove in court to obtain a preliminary injunction. The court’s ruling in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney sets limits on the NLRB’s authority in this regard. It could affect New Jersey employment law claims dealing with labor rights.

Section 10(j) of the NLRA gives the NLRB the authority to petition a court for injunctive relief when it believes someone has engaged in unfair labor practices. Courts are generally hesitant to grant injunctions, which restrain a person from certain activities on penalty of contempt. This is particularly true when the request for an injunction comes at the beginning of a legal proceeding before each side of the dispute has had an opportunity to present their cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court outlined a four-part test for preliminary injunctions in 2008 in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. It states that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show the following:
1. They are likely to succeed based on the merits of their claims.
2. They are likely to suffer “irreparable harm” without an injunction.
3. The “balance of equities” is more favorable to them.
4. An injunction would be in the public interest.
Continue reading

July 12, 2024

New Federal Overtime Rule Takes Effect in July 2024

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Overtime laws guarantee that workers receive additional pay for working more than forty hours in a week. Both federal and New Jersey employment laws contain provisions dealing with overtime compensation. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) includes an exemption from the overtime rules for people who work in “a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.” Also known as the EAP exemption, it covers a wide range of people in management and other specialized roles. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently published a new rule that revises the EAP exemption. It took effect on July 1, 2024, and expands eligibility for overtime pay to include many people who had previously been exempt.

Section 7 of the FLSA states that employees are entitled to time-and-a-half for hours worked above forty per week. Section 13 covers exemptions from this and other requirements, with the EAP exemption first on the list. The statute does not provide definitions of the terms “executive,” “administrative,” or “professional.” The DOL took on that task in its regulations. It discusses the EAP exemption in 29 C.F.R. Part 541.

The EAP exemption has three main requirements:
– The employee is paid on a salary or fee basis, not hourly.
– Their salary is equal to or greater than a threshold amount set by the regulations.
– Their job duties meet Part 541’s definitions of “executive,” administrative,” or “professional.”
The threshold amount for all three roles, prior to July 1, 2024, was $684 per week. This amount, which is equal to $35,568 per year, has remained the same for many years. The new rule finally updates it.
Continue reading

July 5, 2024

Third Circuit Reinstates New Jersey Employee’s Civil Rights Claim

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

While federal and New Jersey employment laws offer protections for most employees against a variety of adverse employment actions, public employees have an additional layer of protection from the U.S. and state constitutions. Certain employment actions could violate employees’ constitutional rights, and those employees may be entitled to damages. Section 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) allow people to file lawsuits for deprivation of constitutional rights under certain circumstances. This may include rights that other statutes also protect. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a public employee in a claim alleging retaliation based on his union activities. While the National Labor Relations Act addresses this kind of retaliation, the suit asserts claims under § 1983 and the NJCRA. The Third Circuit reinstated claims that the plaintiff had brought against the county and a former county official.

Both § 1983 and the NJCRA allow individuals to file suit in connection with actions that allegedly deprive them of constitutional rights. The NJCRA also includes alleged interference with the “exercise or enjoyment” of such rights through “threats, intimidation or coercion.” The two statutes only allow lawsuits for actions taken “under color of law.” This generally refers to actions taken in an official capacity or based on the legal authority of one’s public position.

The Third Circuit case examined the lawsuit under several precedent cases that may relate to civil rights claims against employers. In a 2006 ruling, the Third Circuit established a three-prong test for certain constitutional claims based on retaliation. A plaintiff must prove the following:
1. They engaged in constitutionally protected conduct.
2. They faced “retaliatory action” that would “deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising [their] constitutional rights.”
3. The retaliatory action resulted from the constitutionally protected conduct.
Continue reading

June 28, 2024

EEOC Settles Lawsuits Against New Jersey Employers Over Title VII Data Collection

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Federal and New Jersey employment laws protect workers from discrimination on the basis of factors like race, sex, and religion. State law includes more protected categories than federal law, but both statutes give rather broad authority to government agencies to investigate alleged unlawful practices by employers. At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to pursue enforcement actions directly or give employees approval to file civil lawsuits. The statute directs certain employers to file reports with the EEOC containing demographic data about their employees. The agency recently filed lawsuits against at least fifteen employers, including two in New Jersey, for failing to file these reports on time. It settled both New Jersey lawsuits within a few weeks of filing.

Section 709(c) of Title VII and EEOC regulations require employers with one hundred or more employees to file annual reports regarding the gender and race/ethnicity of their workforces. The EEOC states that it uses the data in these reports to assist in enforcement and research activities.

The EEOC does not require employers to keep records in any specific form. It does, however, require covered employers to use a form known as the EEO-1 Component 1 data report to submit demographic information. EEOC regulations note that employers’ recordkeeping practices should comply with other state and federal laws regarding discrimination and employee privacy.
Continue reading

June 20, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Furloughed Federal Employee

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

When an employer violates your rights, knowing what to do or where to turn can be difficult. It is crucial to seek legal help as soon as possible because of strict filing deadlines under federal and New Jersey employment laws. Missing a filing date can result in delays at best, or a refusal to hear your case at worst. Most employment laws give employees at least six months to submit a claim alleging unlawful employment practices. The time to file an appeal is often much less than the time to file an initial complaint. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a federal government employee who missed a deadline to appeal a decision rejecting his claim for unpaid wages. The decision in Harrow v. Department of Defense makes an exception to employment law’s stringent filing deadlines.

Lawsuits are subject to a filing deadline known as the statute of limitations, which requires plaintiffs to file suit within a limited time after the event that led to the dispute. Employment law often involves administrative agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR). Before filing a lawsuit alleging certain employment law violations, you must file a charge with the EEOC or a complaint with the DCR.

The deadline to file a DCR complaint is 180 days from the date of the alleged employment law violation. For discrimination charges filed with the EEOC, the deadline is also 180 days unless a state agency also enforces a state law against the same type of discrimination. The EEOC’s filing deadline is 300 days in that situation. An additional deadline applies once these agencies have completed their investigations. If the EEOC issues a “right to sue” letter, for example, you have sixty days to file suit in federal court.
Continue reading

June 13, 2024

New Jersey Supreme Court Limits Retroactive Reach of State Wage Theft Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey employment laws protect workers from wage theft. This may occur when an employer requires unpaid work from an employee, and the rate of pay that the employee receives for the total amount of hours worked falls below the state minimum wage. It also often happens when an employer does not pay the time-and-a-half rate required by state law for overtime. Employers that engage in wage theft are liable to employees for unpaid wages and additional damages. A law that took effect in 2019 expanded the “lookback” period for wage theft claims. This is the length of time before the date of an employee’s claim for which they may recover unpaid wages and damages. In May 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court resolved a dispute over whether this lookback period extends before the date the 2019 law took effect. The court held that it does not.

Before the 2019 law, the lookback period for wage theft claims under both the Wage and Hour Law (WHL) and the Wage Payment Law (WPL) was two years. Suppose an employer begins engaging in wage theft against an employee in July 2014. If that employee filed a wage theft claim on July 1, 2018, they would only be able to recover damages for the period beginning on July 1, 2016.

The new law, enacted as Chapter 212, took effect as soon as the governor signed it on August 6, 2019. It expanded the lookback period from two to six years. It also added new damage provisions, including liquidated damages of up to 200% of the unpaid wage amount. Disputes soon arose about whether the expanded lookback period could include employer conduct that occurred before the law’s effective date. A claim filed on August 5, 2019 could recover damages back to August 5, 2017. The question was whether a claim filed on August 7, 2019 could reach back to August 7, 2013. One such dispute made its way to the state supreme court.
Continue reading

June 7, 2024

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules That Broad Non-Disparagement Agreements Are Against State Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employers often use contractual provisions to prohibit employees from disclosing information about discrimination and harassment claims. Non-disclosure clauses can bar employees from revealing information about legal disputes. Non-disparagement provisions often have a much broader scope, prohibiting negative statements about the other party. These provisions may prevent employees from warning others about their experiences. A New Jersey employment law enacted in 2019, known as the “#MeToo law,” bans non-disclosure agreements in employment contracts and settlements involving harassment, discrimination, or retaliation claims. In May 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that non-disparagement agreements also violate this law.

New Jersey law does not specifically define a “non-disparagement agreement.” The New Jersey Supreme Court relied on Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines it as “an agreement…that prohibits criticism by one party on the other.” Non-disparagement agreements might specifically prohibit “defamatory” information, which by definition means that information is untrue. They may also use more generic terms like “harmful to the parties’ business” or “harmful to their business or personal reputation.” Clauses that use this kind of language can bar people from making truthful statements that describe harmful experiences.

The New Jersey Legislature enacted the #MeToo law in the wake of the movement that seeks, in part, to raise awareness of sexual harassment and abuse in workplaces around the world. The law bans non-disclosure agreements in employment contracts and settlement agreements that would prevent people from speaking out about certain violations of antidiscrimination laws. The New Jersey Supreme Court states in its ruling that the law “was enacted in the wake of the ‘#MeToo’ movement to protect individuals who suffer sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination from being silenced by settlement agreements and employment contracts.”
Continue reading

May 29, 2024

How a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Title VII Discrimination Claims

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in April 2024 that addresses an important question about what plaintiffs must prove in employment discrimination claims. Federal and New Jersey employment laws do not expressly state that a plaintiff alleging discrimination must prove that they suffered significant harm. Many courts, however, have interpreted antidiscrimination laws as requiring this kind of proof. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis overturned multiple lower court precedents applying this interpretation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It held that a discriminatory job transfer is unlawful even without evidence of a “materially significant disadvantage.”

Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII deals with unlawful employment discrimination. It mentions acts like “fail[ing[ or refus[ing] to hire” a person and “limit[ing], segregat[ing], or classify[ing]” employees in discriminatory ways. It does not specifically state that a discriminatory employment action must cause harm to the person experiencing the discrimination. Before Muldrow, many courts had interpreted this provision as requiring proof of harm in at least some cases. This includes courts in New Jersey.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Title VII discrimination claims involving “adverse employment actions” require proof of a “cognizable injury.” The injury must be serious enough to alter the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” In the 1997 decision establishing this rule, the court held that “unnecessary derogatory comments” made toward the plaintiff did not rise to this level. Refusal to recommend the plaintiff for a promotion based on discriminatory grounds, however, would meet the standard. Muldrow may overturn the Third Circuit’s rule.
Continue reading