Labor and Employment

Published on: January 14, 2020

Appellate Division Issues First Published Opinion on the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

New Jersey employment law has long been in the forefront of protecting employees’ civil rights baby-feet and prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. While Congress did not pass Title VII until 1964, the Legislature passed the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination in 1945. Since then the LAD has been expanded to protect more types of workers from discrimination because of who they are and give them a wider array of rights and protections. Most recently, in 2014 the Legislature passed the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, again which amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, this time to prohibit discrimination against pregnant workers, and to require reasonable accommodation for physical arising from pregnancy, recovery from childbirth, and breastfeeding. It prohibited employers from penalizing employees for being pregnant.

The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court recently issued the first published opinion interpreting the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in the case of Kathleen J. Delanoy v. Township of Ocean.

Published on: January 13, 2020

McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC Attorneys Successfully Reversed a Decision to Remove an Applicant from a Civil Service List for Appointment as a Jersey City Police Officer

by Robert Chewning, Esq.

Police Car, White Male, 3D Model
On December 6, 2019, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission recently reviewed and rescinded its September 5, 2018 decision which removed an applicant’s name from an eligible list for Jersey City police officer. The case was argued by Maurice W. McLaughlin, Esq., and Robert K. Chewning, Esq.

After the Civil Service Commission made its September 5, 2018 decision, the applicant was required to file an appeal in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. On appeal, the applicant argued that the Civil Service Commission’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and constituted an abuse of discretion based on the evidence which established the applicant’s Jersey City residence prior to the August 31, 2016 announced closing date through the date until the present.

The Appellate Division remanded the case to the Civil Service Commission to review the factual record and reconsider its prior decision. On remand, the Civil Service Commission found: (1) that appellant had established by a preponderance of the evidence that he had lived in Jersey City as of the August 31, 2016 closing date; and (2) that the Civil Service Commission had previously erred in reviewing relevant documents including applicant’s motor vehicle address change form, driver’s license, and lease agreement. A copy of the New Jersey Civil Service Commission’s decision can be found here.

Published on: December 16, 2019

Timing as Circumstantial Evidence of Retaliation in Employment Law Cases

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Whistleblower, Clock, Read, Hours
When facing claims of retaliation for reports on objections about discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination or Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (or for whistleblowing under New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act), courts are often faced with the situation where there is no direct evidence in the form of an admission, document, email or tape recording. Therefore, when examining whether an employer took an action because of retaliation, employees are often forced to rely upon circumstantial evidence. One of the strongest types of circumstantial evidence in cases where the employee alleges she was retaliated against because of her objections about discrimination is the amount of time which elapsed between the objection and the employer’s adverse action. However, this is not the sole element which courts will consider – nothing happens in a vacuum.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently examined just such a situation in a case about Title VII retaliation allegation in the case of Jessica Harrison-Harper v. Nike, Inc., d/b/a/ Converse, Inc. (The Third Circuit hears Federal appeals from the courts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the United States Virgin Islands).

In that case, Jessica Harrison-Harper was an employee of Nike and manager at a Converse retail store. She was hired in July 2014. During the first several months of her employment numerous complaints were received about Harisson-Harper. For example, a customer complained about her refusal to accept the return of a pair of shoes bought at the store. Nike received multiple complaints about Harrison-Harper from her employees about her mismanagement and demeanor, and also from a neighboring Nike store. There was a complaint that Harrison-Harper violated a family discount policy. She was counseled regarding failure to document employee time and attendance issues, and about her plan to rehire an employee she had previously fired for calling a subordinate a “bitch.”

Published on: December 9, 2019

“Independent Contractor” May be a Disappearing Classification for New Jersey Workers

by Pauline M.K. Young

Construction, Building, Build, Industry Small business and contractors often hire independent contractors rather than employees for certain projects and services. Generally, this allows the business to avoid responsibility and expense related to withholding and paying taxes, and obtaining insurance for those workers. However, case law in New Jersey over the years has slowly been narrowing the definition of who may qualify as an independent contractor.

In 2015 for example, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of Hargrove v. Sleepy’s LLC. In that case, the Court found that, when defining a worker as an employee or independent contractor in relation to wage and hour or wage payment claims. The courts will consider the factors set forth in the “ABC” Test. The ABC test considers: (1) the control exercised by the employer of the worker’s work, (2) whether the services performed by the worker were outside the usual course of the employer’s business or performed outside the employer’s place of business, and (3) whether the individual worked in an independently-established business or occupation. So, in order to be an independent contractor, the worker had to be: (1) free from the employer’s control, (2) working away from the employer’s place or business OR working in an area outside the area of work generally conducted by the employer, AND (3) customarily engaged in his/her own established business or profession.

In November of 2019, a new bill was introduced in the New Jersey Senate proposing to limit the use of the independent contractor classification for workers even more. In relation to the second prong, workers could not qualify as independent contractors by physically working outside of the place of business of the employer; the worker would have to provide a service to the employer which is outside the usual course of the employer’s type of business.

Published on: December 3, 2019

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that Some Third-Party Payments to Employees are Properly Included in the Calculation of Overtime Rates

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

American, Bills, Business, Cheque
In the case of Secretary of United States Department of Labor vs. Bristol Excavating, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, recently issued an important, precedential opinion on when payments by third-parties need to be included by employers in the calculation of their employees’ overtime pay rates.

Bristol Excavating, Inc. (Bristol) is a small excavation contractor. Bristol was a subcontract for Talisman Energy, Inc., a large producer of natural gas. Bristol provided Talisman with equipment, labor and services at Talisman’s drilling sites. Bristol’s employees often worked more than 40 hours per week, and Bristol paid them “overtime,” or one and a half times the regular hourly rate which Bristol normally paid them (“time and a half”) for all the hours they worked over 40 hours in one week.

Talisman offered workers at its sites – not just its own employees – separate bonuses rewarding them for safety, efficiency and productively measured by completion of work. Bristol’s employees asked Bristol if they could participate. Bristol agreed, and also agreed to do the administrative work. This administrative work included paying the bonuses through Bristol’s payroll, and taking out all applicable tax withholdings. Bristol did not include these bonuses in its calculation for overtime pay for its employees because it was not Bristol’s money with which the employees were being paid.

Published on: November 25, 2019

New Jersey Supreme Court Rejects Newark School District’s Firing of Tenured Secretary in Major Public Employment Law Decision

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Both New Jersey’s tenure laws in Title 18A, which govern employees in New Jersey’s public schools, and the New Jersey Civil Service Act in Title 11A and Civil Service regulations are designed to ensure that government employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion, etc., are made based on merit rather than nepotism, cronyism, racism, sexism, favoritism or politics. Of course, these factors still come into play, and employers seek ways around these laws. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently rejected such an attempt by the Newark School District to terminate a tenured secretary.

Brenda Miller was an employee of the Newark School District, which had been taken over and operated by the State of New Jersey. The District had adopted the Civil Service Act, Title 11A of New Jersey Statutes, to govern its employees. As public school employees, however, their employment was also governed by Title 18A, which governs New Jersey’s public grammar schools, middle schools, high schools and state colleges.

Brenda was hired in 1998 and held clerical and secretarial positions through 2012. By virtue of this service she had acquired tenure under Title 18A. These positions were also governed by the Civil Service System, and were considered “classified” titles. In 2012, however, the District reclassified Brenda’s current position to an “unclassified” confidential assistant, which as an unclassified title did not have the same civil service protections as classified positions – indeed, unclassified positions have little more protection than an employment at will job in the private sector. In 2014, citing the unclassified status of Brenda’s title, the District terminated her. It did not provide her with notice or a hearing.

Published on: November 19, 2019

Equal Pay Act

by Pauline M.K. Young

Refugees, Economic Migrants

Governor Murphy signed New Jersey’s Equal Pay Act into law in 2018. The NJEPA takes a necessary step in making pay discrepancies in the workplace more transparent with the hopes that this will address the pay differential between white men minorities, and women. Essentially, it bars any penalty to any employee for requesting or disclosing information regarding any employee’s job title, rate of compensation, benefits, race, gender, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic when the purpose of the inquiry or disclosure to investigate the possibility of discriminatory treatment. (While the NJEPA was originally intended to address inequitable pay for women, it was expanded to cover all protected classes of people.)

This allows for employees to obtain information which previously (and even now) is largely safeguarded by employers as “private” in order to determine whether they are being discriminated against based upon a protected classification. Any employer “policy” which forbids discussing compensation in the workplace could be considered void by the law.

The NJEPA amended New Jersey’s Laws Against Discrimination to enable the use of the protections of that statute. The NJEPA also specifically makes it unlawful to pay employees in protected classes a different rate of compensation when performing substantially similar work considering skill, effort, and responsibilities. Differentials may still exist when based on seniority, merit, education, productivity, experience, and other legitimate business reasons. The Act also allows expands upon the LAD’s typical 2-year statute of limitations by setting forth that limitation period restarts each time the employee receives unequal compensation resulting from a discriminatory decision or practice. The employee may also recover up to 6 years of back pay as a result of a violation by the employer. Additionally, the employee may receive treble damages – meaning that they may recover three times the monetary damages awarded as a result of the pay discrepancy.

Published on: November 11, 2019

Chancery Division Issues Ruling on Valuation of Limited Liability Companies Under the New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

One of the most difficult questions in New Jersey Business law concerning the retirement of a business owner is determining the value of the laptop-3175111__340-300x200 owner’s share of the business which the remaining owners must pay to buy out his share. This can be difficult even if the departure itself is on good terms. The method and amount of the valuation can cause vicious disputes even among friendly partners. The Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen County recently issued a published decision on this problem in the context of a limited liability company.

Background

In that case, Namerow v. Pediatricare Associates, LLC, four pediatricians were members (owners) of a medical practice named Pediatricare Associates, LLC. The Amended Operating Agreement which governed valuation of the business upon member retirements provided that:

Published on: October 22, 2019

Equitable Damages in New Jersey Business Law Disputes for Breach of Contract

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

agreement-3476369__340-300x217
Types of Contract Damages

In New Jersey business law disputes, there are two broad categories of damages, legal damages and equitable damages.

Briefly, legal damages, or remedies in law, are money damages. Legal damages are for harms which can be compensated by the payment of money by the party which breached the contract. In New Jersey contract law, punitive damages are not allowed. Likewise, attorneys fees cannot be recovered unless the contract provider for it. Compensatory damages, which are the amount of money needed to make the innocent party whole, may be awarded when they can be proved. In business disputes these are often lost profits, but may also include other damages such as diminution of value of property.

Published on: October 21, 2019

Decision on Objections to Fraud and Criminal Activity of Whistleblowers by New Jersey Supreme Court

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

us-1978465__340-300x200

Decision on Objections to Fraud and Criminal Activity of Whistleblowers by New Jersey Supreme Court

In the recent case of Chiofalo v. State, Division of State Police, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an important employment law decision dealing with whistleblower retaliation.

The Conscientious Employee Protection Act — New Jersey’s “Whistleblower” Law