The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

January 16, 2014

Jury Award Reminds Employers in New Jersey and Across the U.S. that Race Discrimination is Illegal

A California jury has issued a $1.1 million verdict in favor of an African-American firefighter who suffered unlawful race discrimination at work. In Jabari Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles, a 53-year-old man filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Fire Department alleging he became the victim of racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. According to his complaint, Jabari Jumaane was disciplined and suspended at least twice while employed as a fire inspector with the Los Angeles Fire Department after his superior officer falsified his performance evaluations. Jumaane also claims he took a voluntary demotion to firefighter after more than 27 years with the Department in an effort to avoid continued racial discrimination. His lawsuit was the second time the issue went before a Los Angeles jury. A 2007 jury verdict issued in favor of the City of Los Angeles was later overturned due to juror misconduct.

At trial, Jumaane testified that he was often subjected to racial slurs, jokes, and other verbal abuse at work. City officials alleged that Jumaane’s disciplinary history was entirely warranted and he invented his discrimination claims because he was dissatisfied with the Department’s disciplinary process. After six days of deliberations, jurors sided with Jumaane and ordered the City of Los Angeles to pay him $1.1 million. City officials are reportedly considering whether to appeal the jury’s verdict.

This case is not the first time the Los Angeles Fire Department has faced scrutiny over alleged race discrimination. The Fire Department was accused of systemic discrimination against African-Americans in the past. In addition, the City paid another firefighter $1.5 million in 2006 in order to avoid a potentially costly race discrimination trial.
Continue reading

January 15, 2014

Hudson County Jury Awards Former Public Safety Director $440,000 in Back Pay for Unlawful Race Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

An eight-member Hudson County jury has awarded a former City of Hoboken employee $440,000 in back wages for discrimination. In the lawsuit, former Public Safety Director Angel Alicea, who is Hispanic, alleged that he resigned from his position in 2011 after he suffered race discrimination and retaliation at the Hoboken Police Department. Alicea also claims Mayor Dawn Zimmer intentionally underpaid him, sought to replace him with a white man, and attempted to destroy his reputation.

When he resigned, Alicea was reportedly earning $27,000 per year in his part-time role with the city. He was later replaced by a full-time employee who earns $110,000 annually. At trial, Mayor Zimmer testified that Alicea was asked to resign after she discovered the former Public Safety Director lied to her about meeting with a key witness in a high profile sting operation. According to Alicea, the meeting Mayor Zimmer described never took place. Alicea stated he believes he was asked to resign under threat of being fired for disclosing alleged improprieties related to steroid use and drug testing within the department.

Although a majority of jurors found the City of Hoboken discriminated against Alicea, their verdict stated Mayor Zimmer did not engage in illegal race discrimination against the man. The next day, a separate hearing regarding punitive damages was cancelled after the parties reached a settlement agreement. That agreement is now pending approval before the Hoboken City Council.
Continue reading

January 14, 2014

Federal Law Protects Workers in New Jersey, New York, and Elsewhere from Unlawful Age Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Restaurant chain Ruby Tuesday has agreed to settle a class-action age discrimination lawsuit for a total of $575,000. In EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., the nation’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) accused at least six Ruby Tuesday restaurants in Pennsylvania and Ohio of engaging in discrimination against job applicants over age 40 in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In addition, the restaurant chain allegedly failed to comply with provisions of the ADEA and EEOC regulations that require a business to maintain a copy of employment applications.

As part of the settlement, Ruby Tuesday must work to recruit and hire employees who are over age 40 at the six affected restaurant locations and ensure that all company job advertisements are created in accordance with ADEA requirements. The restaurant chain is also required to conduct regular audits to monitor each restaurant’s compliance with the law and ensure that no future discrimination based upon a job applicant’s or worker’s age takes place. Additionally, Ruby Tuesday has agreed to evaluate managers and other individuals with hiring authority at the affected restaurants based upon his or her ability to recruit and hire older workers. The restaurant chain must also provide extensive training regarding ADEA compliance to a designated compliance monitor, human resources personnel, and anyone with hiring authority at the six restaurants. Finally, Ruby Tuesday agreed to maintain all records related to company hiring practices and provide regular written reports to the EEOC.

Older workers often bring greater experience and leadership skills to the workplace. Despite that aging is a fact of life, some employers choose to discriminate against employees who are over age 40. If a manager makes his or her hiring, compensation, promotion, termination, or other employment decisions based upon a worker’s age, discrimination has occurred. As this case demonstrates, federal law protects workers who are over age 40 from age discrimination. In addition, employment laws in both New York and New Jersey provide discrimination protections for all adult workers or job candidates regardless of age.
Continue reading

January 13, 2014

OSHA Award Demonstrates that Employers in New Jersey and Elsewhere May Not Retaliate Against Workers Who Refuse to Violate the Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The owner of an Ohio-based trucking company recently agreed to pay two former truckers more than $300,000 after it fired them in violation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act’s (STAA) whistleblower provisions. The two men were allegedly fired for refusing to operate a commercial vehicle in violation of federal law after one of the men was cited by West Virginia State Police for carrying an excessive load and operating a tractor-trailer without a log book, commercial driver’s license, or required vehicle information displayed. Both men were reportedly terminated from Star Air Inc. for refusing to continue driving company vehicles until the issues were resolved.

After the two men filed a discrimination and retaliation complaint with the United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), an administrative law judge ordered the company to reinstate the workers with back pay. The judge’s order was later upheld by the agency’s Administrative Review Board. As part of a consent agreement, the trucking company will pay the men $302,000 over the course of three years. If the payments are not made, the company and its owner will be liable for the entire award of nearly $700,000 issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, in Civil Action Number 5:12-cv-02833.

OSHA is responsible for enforcing the whistleblower protections enumerated in the STAA and multiple other Acts. In general, employers may not retaliate against workers who raise specific concerns that are protected by federal law or notify the federal government regarding their concerns. Additionally, employees who are terminated or suffer other retaliation for voicing their concerns may file a complaint with OSHA.
Continue reading

January 10, 2014

Liquidated Damages Award in FLSA Case Reminds Employers in New Jersey and Across the U.S. to Comply With Wage Laws

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A federal court has ordered a restaurant company to pay a group of employees liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In Dobson, et al, v. Timeless Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Denny’s, a number of diner servers sued their employer for failure to pay unpaid minimum wages and overtime. According to the restaurants workers, they were required to participate in a tip pool that redistributed a portion of their earnings to other employees whose wages were not tip-based.

After a jury found Timeless Restaurants violated the FLSA, the court considered whether to award the workers liquidated damages. The employees argued that such an award was merited under the FLSA because the jury determined that Timeless acted willfully when it failed to pay wait staff minimum and overtime wages. Timeless, on the other hand argued that the jury’s determination was not determinative and the company “had reasonable grounds to believe that its acts or omissions did not violate the FLSA.”

According to the court, liquidated damages are not required under the FLSA if an employer who failed to pay a worker the appropriate wages acted in good faith. Still, the statute places the burden for demonstrating such a good faith belief on the employer. According to the district court, Fifth Circuit precedent states that an employer may not demonstrate it acted in good faith after a jury has determined the employer willfully violated the FLSA. As a result, Timeless was ordered to pay liquidated damages for its willful FLSA violations.
Continue reading

January 10, 2014

Lawsuit Demonstrates that Workers in New Jersey and Elsewhere May Not be Sexually Harassed for Failing to Conform to Gender Stereotypes

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of a construction worker in a sexual harassment lawsuit. In EEOC v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., the nation’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Louisiana man who claims he was subjected to verbal and physical harassment by a male work supervisor because he does not conform to the man’s gender stereotypes.

The employee was initially hired by Boh Bros. Construction Co. to perform welding and iron repair work on a Louisiana bridge following Hurricane Katrina. He was later transferred to a bridge maintenance crew consisting of about six men and one supervisor. According to the record presented at trial, the supervisor regularly used vulgar language at work. A few months after his transfer, the supervisor began calling the employee names, questioning his masculinity, and performing harassing acts that “embarrassed and humiliated” him.

After the employee complained about the supervisor’s behavior, he was transferred to another work crew. Later, the supervisor learned that the employee violated a company policy and told him to meet with the general supervisor. The employee again complained about the harassment and was sent home without pay. The employee claims there was no discussion of the policy violation. The general supervisor apparently performed a perfunctory investigation of the harassment allegations and determined they were without merit. Two days later, the employee was told to report to work. A few months after he filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC, he was laid off for lack of work.
Continue reading

December 6, 2013

New York Attorney General Announces Settlement Reached in Pregnancy Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuit Against Syracuse Mortuary School

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman recently announced that his office has settled a sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed against a Syracuse mortuary school and its president in 2011. As part of the settlement, the Simmons Institute of Funeral Services and Maurice Wightman agreed to pay restitution to a number of former instructors and students who filed complaints against the school and to implement reforms designed to ensure future harassment and discrimination do not occur. Additionally, both the school and Wightman agreed to refrain from engaging in any sort of retaliation against the women who filed complaints against the institution and to immediately report any future harassment or discrimination allegations to the Office of the Attorney General.

According to the lawsuit, Wightman made sexual comments and inappropriately touched female students. He also allegedly refused to allow both pregnant students and faculty to engage in certain activities despite doctor approval. Ironically, Wightman is reportedly the private for-profit school’s designated contact for all discrimination and harassment complaints.

In New York, discrimination on the basis of a woman’s pregnancy constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. Title IX of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits any educational institution that receives federal funds from engaging in sex discrimination in education. Additionally, both New York and federal law require employers and educators to refrain from engaging in pregnancy discrimination.
Continue reading

December 5, 2013

New Jersey Law Protects Workers from Discrimination Prohibited by Proposed Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The United States Senate has passed a bill designed to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender workers across the country from discrimination. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would prohibit employers with at least 15 workers from engaging in discrimination against an employee based upon his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill also provides an exemption for religious institutions and the military. The measure was passed after two Independent, 10 Republican, and 52 Democratic Senators voted in favor of the bill. The proposed law will now move on to the House of Representatives for consideration.

Despite the bill’s bipartisan success in the Senate, House Speaker John Boehner reportedly opposes the workplace rights bill. A spokesperson for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Rory Cooper, stated the proposed measure is not currently on the legislative schedule. President Obama stated it is his hope that the bill will be considered, passed, and sent to his desk for signature quickly. It is unclear, however, whether the measure will be ever considered by the House.

Although a number of state anti-discrimination laws are in place, there is currently no federal law that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender workers in the U.S. from discrimination. The landmark Employment Non-Discrimination Act was first introduced to the Congress in 1994. Since then, the measure was re-introduced each year with varied success. In 1996, the proposed law failed in the Senate by only one vote. In 2007, the measure was passed by the House of Representatives but not the Senate.
Continue reading

December 3, 2013

New York Lawmakers Propose Bill That Would Protect Interns From Harassment and Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A bill that was recently introduced in the New York Legislature would provide unpaid interns with many of the same statutory protections that employees across the state currently enjoy. S05951 would make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against interns who are members of a protected class. If the proposed measure is approved, interns would be legally protected from discrimination based upon race, creed, age, national origin, color, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, and other factors. It would also provide unpaid employees with both sexual harassment and whistleblower protections.

The bill was introduced by democratic lawmaker Liz Krueger of Manhattan. She stated a recent New York federal court ruling in which an intern’s sexual harassment lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing under the New York Human Rights Law demonstrates the need for the proposed legislation. In the past, some courts have also held that interns are not afforded the same protections as employees under federal civil rights laws. If the proposed measure is passed, New York will become the second state to provide unpaid interns with substantially similar legal protections as paid employees. Oregon enacted a so-called intern rights law in June.

Employers in New York, New Jersey, and throughout the nation are not legally required to treat each worker fairly. For example, in some situations an employer may engage in nepotism, favoritism, or simple “office politics.” An employee who is treated poorly may only seek legal action where the discrimination was based on a legally protected status. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating against a worker based on race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Both the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law prohibit employment discrimination based on gender and other factors. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination also makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate in any job-related action on the basis of one or more of the statute’s protected categories.
Continue reading

December 3, 2013

Exxon to Begin Offering Same-Sex Spousal Benefits in New Jersey and Across the U.S. Amid Allegations of Sexual Orientation Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

In September, Exxon Mobil Corporation announced that the company would begin offering benefits to the legally married same-sex spouses of employees in the United States. According to a spokesperson for the company, Alan Jeffers, the change was made in response to official guidance that was issued by the nation’s Department of Labor after the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June. Jeffers stated that Exxon has not changed its criteria for benefits eligibility. He added that the oil and gas company offers same-sex spousal benefits in at least 30 nations consistent with local legal requirements.

Despite the change, Exxon has been accused of failing to adequately protect gay workers and applicants in the past. This year, the Human Rights Campaign ranked the company dead last when compared with other corporate gay, lesbian, and transgender employee anti-discrimination policies. In addition, a lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination against a gay job applicant was recently filed against Exxon in the State of Illinois.

All current or potential employees in New Jersey who are members of a protected class are protected from workplace discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating based on race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Additionally, New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate in any job-related action on the basis of any of the statute’s protected categories. LAD protected categories include sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, race, sex, pregnancy status, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, marital status, mental or physical disability, and others.
Continue reading