Civil Service Law

Published on: March 18, 2026

Appeals Court Strikes Down Background Circumstances Rule in Reverse Discrimination Lawsuits Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination in Federal Court

Background: Anti-Discrimination Statutes and the Background Circumstances Rule

Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination both prohibit employers from illegally discriminating against their employees. Normally the evaluation is straightforward under the McDonnell Douglas Test. However, in the case of reverse discrimination, i.e., where an employer is accused of discriminating against an employee who is in the majority, New Jersey and paterson-pd-john-and-andrew-300x183 many Federal courts imposed a higher burden of proof on the employee. In cases of reverse discrimination, employees in New Jersey state courts and many federal courts had to satisfy the “Background Circumstances Rule,” which requires that the employee prove that he “has been victimized by the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” However, in 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Background Circumstances Rule in Title VII cases in the case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.

The U.S. Supreme Court Steps In

Published on: March 4, 2026

New Jersey Appeals Court Rejects Argument that Public Employee’s Subsequent Employment Relieves Employer from Having to Pay Amounts in Separation Agreement

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Appellate Division examined a town’s termination of payments to its former employee under a separation agreement when the employee became employed by another town.

Background

Alberto Cabrera was the municipal clerk of the Town of Guttenberg, New Jersey. As so often happens, the parties wished to terminate their relationship. They entered into a Separation Agreement which provided that Cabrera would stop performing his duties and go on paid leave beginning on August 18, 2022, and the leave would terminate with his retirement on March 31, 2023. He would be on the payroll and paid his regular salary by the Town through that day. He would continue to get medical benefits through March 31, 2023. The Town would also pay him his accrued but unused vacation, sick, compensatory and personal days for 2022 and 2023. Cabrera agreed to submit a letter requesting this paid leave of absence, which he did the same day. The Town’s Mayor and Council voted to approve the agreement. Cabrera inquired about amending the agreement once, but it was never changed in any way.

Published on: February 17, 2026

New Jersey Appeals Court Examines the Effect of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act on Litigation of Related Non-Sexual Harassment Claims

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act

The New Jersey Arbitration Act and Federal Arbitration Act generally require enforcement of agreements to arbitrate disputes. This extends to the enforcement of arbitration agreements in employment contracts.

However, in response to the #MeToo Movement, Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. The EFAA provided: new-york-county-courthouse-1540991328RMS-300x200

Published on: January 16, 2026

New Jersey Appeals Court Examines Effect of Conviction on Police Officer’s Law Enforcement License

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A New Jersey employment law decision recently examined the effect of a conviction under the newly enacted New Jersey Police Training Act and with the New Jersey Police Training Commission in the case of Garcia vs. New Jersey Police Training Commission.

paterson-pd-andrew-300x211

Background

Gregory Gacia was a police officer with the Wharton, New Jersey, Police Department. As a result of a search of his residence, he was charged with false representations and gun possession offenses. Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, he entered into a plea agreement whereby he pled guilty to one count of possessing a large capacity ammunition magazine in the fourth degree. He was sentenced to one year of probation, with the judgment of conviction entered on January 13, 2023. Garcia appealed his decision to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, when affirmed his conviction on October 7, 2024. He thereafter appealed to the Supreme Courts of New Jersey and the United States, both of which refused to hear his appeal.

Published on: October 31, 2025

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Rights of Police Officers Facing Discipline in Non-Civil Service Jurisdictions

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

An appeals court recently issued an opinion in the case of Hand v. Borough of New Providence, examining the rights of New Jersey police officers facing discipline in non-civil service jurisdictions

Background

The opinion explained that Michael Hand was a corporal with the New Providence Police Department, with thirteen years of service. On May 17, 2019, he was eating dinner with his wife at a diner during a meal break when a call came for him to respond to a domestic incident. Another officer, Patrolman Lunch responded. Plaintiff texted Lynch and his supervisor to see if they needed him but they did not respond, so he did not go. The supervisor, Sergeant Diamond, who was not called, terminated a traffic stop to respond when he saw on GPS that Hand was not responding. At the scene, a juvenile experienced a mental health crisis and the situation escalated; Diamond called Hand on the radio and Hand then responded 13 minutes after the original call.

Published on: September 23, 2025

New Jersey Whistleblower Law Amendments Enhance Employee Protections

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey’s whistleblower law was recently amended to further protect New Jersey private and public sector employees from being forced by their employers to sit through required “captive audience” meetings in an attempt to improperly coerce their employees from exercising their rights.

The Conscientious Employee Protection Act

The Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) is New Jersey’s whistleblower law. Considered one of the United States’s strongest whistleblower protection laws, it forbids employers from retaliating against their employees for disclosing, objecting to, reporting or refusing to participate in activities which they reasonably believe are illegal, fraudulent, constitute improper patient care, or violate established public policy.

Published on: December 7, 2024

Hiring New Jersey Municipal Police Officers and Firefighters

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey employment law governs the hiring of municipal police officers and firefighters, particularly Titles 11A and 40A of New Jersey Statutes. These local first responders play critical roles in our society. New Jersey employment law therefore closely regulates the hiring joe-b-300x200 process to ensure that New Jersians are served by only the best law enforcement officers and firefighters.

There are two roots for hiring local government law enforcement officers and firefighters. In civil service jurisdictions, an applicant must pass a civil service examination, score high enough on the list to be reached, pass physical and psychological examinations, pass a background investigation, and successfully complete a police academy course. Municipalities which have not adopted civil service have more discretion in hiring, in that the applicants do not have to take a civil service examination or be ranked high enough on a civil service hiring list. However, many non-civil service jurisdictions utilize a “chief’s test” in place of the civil service examination. Civil service municipalities retain some discretion in hiring through the “Rule of Three.”

Initial hires must be at least 18 years of age, but no more than 35, although there are exceptions to the maximum age requirement for veterans and law enforcement officers and firefighters with prior service in another jurisdiction. They must be New Jersey residents, although recently discharged veterans receive a grace period to move to New Jersey. A municipality cannot require an applicant to be a resident of the local jurisdiction, but it can give a preference to residents. residence can also be used as a tie breaker in promotions. The “veterans preference” is applicable to hiring in civil service municipalities.

Published on: November 3, 2024

All Employers Required to Provide New Jersey Disabled Employees With Reasonable Accommodations So They Can Do Their Job

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey’s Requirement for Employers to Provide Reasonable Accommodations for Disabled Employees

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination because of an employee’s disability. New Jersey civil service law also prohibits discrimination because of an employee’s disability. These laws require employers to provide 7-300x225 reasonable accommodations so that disabled employees can perform their duties.

The regulations promulgated by the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights implementing the Law Against Discrimination’s reasonable accommodation requirement require employers to engage in an “interactive process” with the employee to determine what reasonable accommodations the employer can provide for the employee.

Published on: October 24, 2024

Limits of Progressive Discipline in New Jersey Civil Service Law Addressed by Appeals Court

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Progressive Discipline

Progressive discipline is a principle followed in New Jersey employment law, in both civil service and non-civil service jurisdictions, including public schools. In progressive discipline, a public employee’s prior disciplinary history will be considered in determining the appropriate penalty for disciplinary violations. Thus, a 6-300x225 government employee with a clean disciplinary record would receive a lesser penalty for the same violation for which another employee with previous discipline would receive a harsher penalty. For example, an employee who was late for the first time might receive no discipline, while one who has been late fifty times in a year might be terminated. Even with first offenses, however, some infractions are so severe that major discipline, even termination, may be appropriate for a first offense.

The Johnson Case

Published on: October 21, 2024

NJ Appeals Court Confirms Government Employees Can Only Litigate Employment Claims in One Forum

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey public employees have multiple venues to litigate employment claims against their government employers.

Forums Available to New Jersey Public Employees

New Jersey government employees can sue in New Jersey state court, beginning with the Superior Court of New Jersey which sits in each county, for violation of state laws such as the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and then the state appellate courts. For employment-related civil rights claims or violations of Federal laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees can file suit in the Federal courts beginning with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey which sits in Camden, Trenton and Newark, with appeals heard by the United Staes Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then the United States Supreme Court. A civil service employee who alleges that she was disciplined in violation of civil service laws can appeal to the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, with appeals from Commission decisions being heard by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Tenured teachers and other education employees can appeal to the New Jersey Department of Education. Public employees can utilize the grievance procedure in the contract for allegations of violations of the contract for discipline, pay violations and other related matters. Grievance procedures in many union contracts often provide for binding arbitration with the Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”). PERC will also hear allegations of unfair labor practices, binding arbitration of certain contract negotiation impasses, scope of negotiations disputes, bargaining unit disputes, and certain appeals of discipline by law enforcement officers who are not employed in civil service jurisdictions.