Labor and Employment

Published on: August 20, 2021

Appellate Division New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Removal from Civil Service Eligible List for Law Enforcement Position

A recent New Jersey employment law decision by the Appellate Division of the State Superior Court in the case of Matter of Brian Clancy, illustrates the procedures – and some of the pitfalls – of appeals from the removal of candidates from civil service eligible lists. imagesCAWQ89PS

Background: Removal from the Eligible List

Clancy hoped to become a sheriff’s officer with the Bergen County Sheriff’s Officer, a civil service employer. He took the civil service exam, passed, and was placed on the eligible list. Thereafter, the Sheriff’s Office conducted a routine pre-employment background investigation, which is normal procedure after a candidate for a law enforcement officer position is placed on an eligible list for an agency. Based on the results of the investigation, the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office removed Clancy’s name from the eligible list.

Published on: August 13, 2021

Supreme Court of New Jersey Employment Law Decision Clarifies Standard for Illegal Workplace Harassment

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

In an important employment law decision, New Jersey’s Supreme Court once again considered the actions necessary to constitute illegal workplace harassment in the case of Rios v. Meda Pharmaceutical, Inc. In this case the alleged harassment was based on an employee’s race columns-round-300x201 and ethnicity in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination.

Background

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination prohibits workplace discrimination because an employee’s protected characteristic, including the employee’s:

Published on: July 20, 2021

Third Circuit Decision Eliminates Barrier to Age Discrimination Lawsuits

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination prohibits employment discrimination, including age discrimination. In interpreting this state law, New Jersey courts look to federal employment law, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the “ADEA,” passed by Congress in 1967. A recent case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed a typical issue in age discrimination cases. Since judge-gavel-1461998219JBc-300x200 the Third Circuit hears federal appeals from the Federal District Courts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the United States Virgin Islands, the case, Martinez v. UPMC Susquehanna, is binding on New Jersey cases under the ADEA. However, it is also influential on how New Jersey state courts will interpret the Law Against Discrimination.

Background

Zeferino Martinez, M.D., was a board certified orthopedic surgeon who had four decades of experience practicing medicine. At the time of these events he was seventy years old. A hospital hired Doctor Martinez in 2016 with a three year contract; he was the hospital’s only orthopedic surgeon. In 2017, UPMC Susquehanna purchased the hospital and took over its management. One month later UPMC’s chief operating officer and the executive director of UPMC’s musculoskeletal division fired Martinez. They explained only that UPMC was “moving in a different direction and [Martinez’s] services were no longer needed,” and that his termination “had nothing to do with [his] performance.”

Published on: June 17, 2021

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines When a New Jersey Civil Service Law Enforcement Officer May be Fined as a Form of Discipline

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A recent New Jersey employment law decision in the case of In the Matter of Wilfred Guzman, Rockaway Township Police Department, examined what penalties are available against a New police-hoboken-train-station Jersey civil service law enforcement officer.

Background

Wilfredo Guzman was a police officer with the Rockaway Township Police Department, a civil service jurisdiction. Guzman was suspended without pay from April 24, 2017, when he was indicted, until June 19, 2019, when he was served with a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action which terminated him. The termination was triggered by Officer Guzman’s guilty pleas to two counts of second degree official misconduct. The Township also fined Officer Guzman the equivalent of 1040 hours worth of pay. Guzman appealed the fine to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (“NJOAL”) – New Jersey employment law allows civil service law enforcement officers to skip appeals to the New Jersey Civil Service Commission requesting that the appeal be considered a contested case, and instead file instead directly with the NJOAL.

Published on: May 24, 2021

Appellate Division Rules that New Jersey Employment Law Ignores Titles When Determining Whether Public School Secretaries Have Acquired Tenure

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Attaining tenure is a milestone for public school employees. Under New Jersey employment law, tenure carries legal protections against termination or discipline without just cause, and requires formal tenure charges and the right to challenge those charges through a hearing and appeal process. These bully-3233568__340-300x272 protections are extremely valuable.

Much literature has been written about tenure requirements for teachers under New Jersey employment law. However, New Jersey employment law also provides that other public school employees may obtain tenure protection as well. The Appellate Division addressed the acquisition of tenure for school board secretaries and administrative assistants in the case of Saylor v. Board of Education of the Town of West New York.

Background

Published on: May 17, 2021

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Ramifications of Settlement of Police Officer Disciplinary Charges

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Police officer discipline has significant ramifications under New Jersey employment law, whether the officer is in a civil service or non-civil service police department. These extend beyond the ramifications of discipline for other public and private employees in New Jersey. The police-1714956__340-300x200 Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court recently examined some of these ramifications in its opinion in the case of Gilbert vs. Warren County Prosecutor.

Background

Jefferey C. Gilbert was a police officer with the Mansfield Township Police Department, a non-civil service jurisdiction. He settled department disciplinary charges arising from alleged misconduct during a DUI investigation. Gilbert accepted a six day suspension without pay to resolve all the disciplinary action against him, with the provision that the record of the discipline would remain in his personnel file and could be used as evidence if he received future disciplinary charges for the purposes of progressive discipline.

Published on: May 6, 2021

New Jersey Employment Law Opinion Examines Classification of Employees and Independent Contractors

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey employment law governs the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors. The classification is important and fact sensitive. It has far reaching consequences. The Appellate Division recently issued a published opinion in imagesCAWQ89PS the case of East Bay Drywall, LLC vs. the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, which examined some of these issues and provides guidance for both employers and employees.

Background

The Department of Labor and Workforce Development administers the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation and Temporary Disability Insurance Laws. It collects revenues from employers and employees to fund these benefits. However, “employers” only need to make contributions for their “employees,” not for independent contractors. Therefore, there is an economic incentive for businesses to classify workers as contractors rather than employees. However, misclassification can trigger severe consequences.

Published on: April 21, 2021

New Jersey Employment Law Takeaways from Recent Decision on New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Some important New Jersey employment law issues were explored in a recent opinion issued by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court concerning the New supreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200 Jersey Law Against Discrimination in the case of Kazaba versus Randolph Township Board of Education.

The Kazaba Case

Charles Kazaba sued the Randolph Township Board of Education for age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination in Law Division of the State Superior Court for allegedly taking discriminatory actions against him because of his age. He was a security for the Board for more than 21 years and had no disciplinary record. For many years Kazaba was the only security guard, but at some point the Board hired additional, younger security guards with prior law enforcement experience (these were referred to as the “Ram Guards” after the high school’s mascot). At sixty years of age he was the oldest security guard. He claimed that his supervisors took a course of or actions favoring the younger Ram Guards and making his job more difficult because he was older.

Published on: March 15, 2021

State Supreme Court Finds Promissory Estoppel Viable New Jersey Employment Law Claim for Withdrawal of Job Offer, Including Those to Investment Advisors

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A frequent problem in New Jersey employment law occurs when a business offers someone a job without a contract, that person then quits their current employment, the business rescinds the offer, and the employee is left without a job. There is no contract, so the employee cannot sue for breach of contract. What can she do? In an important New Jersey employment law decision, the State Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb v. Solimine that the employee signature-3113182__340-300x200 has a viable claim for promissory estoppel and may recover “reliance damages” from the prospective employer based on what she would have made had she not quit in reliance on the promise and stayed at her prior job. Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine which provides that a party should be responsible for the consequences when a promisee relied on its promise and suffers damages when the promisor fails to perform.

Background

David Solimine offered Jed Goldfarb a job managing his family’s investment portfolio. Goldfarb would receive an annual salary of $250,000-$275,000, plus ten to twenty percent of profits made because of his efforts or advice. Neither the offer nor a contract were ever put in writing. However, Goldfarb left his current job as a financial analyst (where he had made between $308,000 and $466,000 per year) in reliance on Solomine’s promise of employment. After Goldfarb quit, Solimine withdrew the offer and Goldfarb found himself unemployed.

Published on: March 12, 2021

The New Jersey Supreme Court Considers the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for the First Time in Police Pregnancy Discrimination Matter

by Robert Chewning, Esq.

On March 9, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an important employment law decision on pregnancy discrimination in the case of Delanoy v. Township of Ocean, which confirms the distinct causes of actions that may be brought and how they should be brought under the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“NJPWFA”).

Background

A female police officer for the Township of Ocean brought a pregnancy discrimination case against the Township based on standing operating procedures (“SPOs”) and the Township’s treatment, which she alleged discriminated against her in violation of the NJPWFA and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).