"New Jersey Employment Lawyers"

Published on: December 21, 2016

Fighting New Jersey’s Rule of Three

One of the prime methods of hiring, firing, promotion and discipline of public employees is New Jersey’s civil service. Attorneys from our firm represent employees in appeals from actions by their civil service employers. One of the most significant issues in the civil service hiring process our employment attorneys have encountered is when government employers exercise the “Rule of Three.”

New Jersey’s Constitution requires that hiring in the civil service system must be based on merit and fitness, and that a candidate’s merit and fitness be determined by a competitive examination. The system put in place by New Jersey’s Civil Service Act and the regulations drafted by New Jersey’s Civil Service Commission provide that impartial tests which examine a candidate’s competency are announced, qualified candidates take the test, and then the Civil Service Commission creates a list of “eligibles” from which the candidates must be hired. The highest scorers will receive the top spot on the list. Candidates are to be hired in accordance with their place on the list.

However, an exception applies to this process. Public employers may use the “Rule of Three” to pass over the highest scorer. In the recent case of In re Foglio, New Jersey’s Supreme Court had the chance to examine the Rule of Three. The first thing the Supreme Court did was to explain what the Rule of Three was all about. The Supreme Court explained: “Under the Rule of Three, after a list of at least three candidates is certified, the appointing authority has the discretion to select from among the top three candidates in filling a vacancy. The Rule of Three recognizes employment discretion and seeks to ensure that such discretion is not exercised in a way inconsistent with `merit’ considerations. While ensuring that competitive examinations winnow the field of candidates, the Rule of Three does not stand as ‘an immutable or total bar to the application of other important criteria” by a government employer’.”

Published on: December 20, 2016

Fair Labor Standards Act Regulations

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Background: New Regulations Adopted

In 2014 the United State Department of Labor issued new regulations governing overtime exemptions. The regulations did not change the main overtime exemptions, but it did raise the salary threshold for them to apply.

Existing Exemptions

Published on: December 13, 2016

Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act

by Pauline M.K. Young

dollar-1889027__340 The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is a federal statute enacted in 1938 with the goal of setting national standards for employees, including minimum wage, overtime requirements, child labor restrictions, and other protections. Our employment attorneys represent management and employers in litigation under FLSA violations and litigation about its state counterpart, the New Jersey Wage and Hour law. Our

Many changes have been made to the FLSA over the years to try to keep up with the changes in inflation the socioeconomic climate of the country. On March 13, 2014, President Obama published a Presidential Memorandum directing the DOL to review and revise the regulations protecting workers through minimum wage and overtime standards. In May of 2016, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) responded by updating the FLSA to extend overtime pay protections and minimum salaries – which would mark the first significant change in 40 years.

The rule sets a minimum salary requirement of $47,476 for salaried workers – which more than doubled the prior minimum of $23,660. Generally, employees are paid on an hourly basis and then paid one and a half times their regular hourly pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, certain employees are “exempt” from the hourly pay and overtime requirements. Some of the most comment exemptions are for: professionals (lawyers, accountants, engineers, etc.) executives or administrators (managers, officers, etc.), and commissioned salespeople. For employees not being paid on commission, these exempt workers are generally paid an annual salary as opposed to an hourly wage.

Published on: June 6, 2016

Proving Disabilities in Cases Under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

orthosis-449685__180
New Jersey employment law has long protected employees against discrimination in employment. New Jersey was one of the first states to do so, passing the Law Against Discrimination in 1947. One of the things that New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination protects employees from is discrimination because of disabilities. This means that employers are prohibited from doing three things. First, employers cannot take adverse actions, such as firing or demotion, against employees because of their disabilities. Second, employers cannot harass or create a hostile work environment for employees because of their disability. Finally, employeer cannot fail to make reasonable accommodations so that employees can do their job even with their disabilities.

When an employer violates New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, employees may sue their employees. If they are successful they can recover their economic damages (such as lost pay), compensation for their emotional distress, the attorneys fees and litigation expenses they spent in the lawsuit, and sometimes punitive damages. Of course, the employees must first prove that the employers violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and then they must prove their damages.

Proving that an employee had a disability is part of the employee’s required proofs. In many cases there is no dispute because the disability is apparent – if an employee is missing a leg the disability is obvious, and in many cases the disability is admitted. However, in many cases the disability is neither apparent nor admitted by the employer. How then to prove that the employee had the disability? In many cases, this requires testimony from a doctor.

Published on: July 24, 2015

Why Civil Service Matters

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Our employment attorneys represent New Jersey public employees, such as police officers, firefighters, public works workers, professionals and others, who are covered by the civil service system. We hear many complaints about civil service: The rules are too rigid; it makes it too hard to fire an employee; it makes it too hard for an employee to find a job; discipline is either too hard or too easy to impose, depending on your point of view; the rules are too complex and burdensome.

Many of these complaints are true. However, they miss the point. The New Jersey civil service system is there for a reason. New Jersey has a long history of corruption, cronyism, bribery and nepotism. While there are many funny stories from this history, from Frank Hague’s “I am the law” quote to the recent closing of the George Washington Bridge, this history is awful. It has a terrible effect on government.

Hiring and promotion based on politics, bribes or “who you know” means that merit is removed from the equation. When merit is removed, government operations and the government’s services to its citizens inevitably suffer, and the cost of providing those services therefore increases.

To remedy this, New Jersey adopted the Civil Service system over a century ago in 1908. Indeed, in a wave of reform after World War II, and in reaction to the corrupt local government under Depression Era “bosses” like Hague, New Jersey passed the Constitution of 1947 which overhauled New Jersey’s state and local government. The drafters of the 1947 Constitution enshrined the principal that hiring and promotion should be based on merit, not politics, nepotism, cronyism or bribes. The Constitution specifically provides that “Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the State, and of such political subdivisions [counties and towns] as may be provided by law, shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination, which, as far as practicable, shall be competitive….” Indeed, this is why civil service is often referred to as the “merit system.”
Continue reading

Published on: June 25, 2013

New Jersey Employers Need To Be Aware of Discrimination Dangers in Using Background Checks for Hiring Decisions

by McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC

What does an employer’s use of criminal history information in hiring decisions have to do with employment discrimination? The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that an employer’s use of an individual’s criminal history in making employment decisions could violate the prohibition against employment discrimination.

The situation has attracted attention from lawsuits involving an automobile manufacturer and a discount retailer who are alleged to have inappropriately used criminal background checks to deny employment to workers, resulting in discriminatory treatment. The lawsuits were brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is enforced by the EEOC and prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

The EEOC issued updated employment guidance to address findings that the application of criminal background checks for employment decisions results in a disparate impact based on race and national origin. African Americans and Hispanics are incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their numbers in the general population, indicating an increased potential for disparate impact, but employers can show in an EEOC investigation that their particular employment policy or practice does not cause a disparate impact on the protected group.

Courts look to the following types of evidence to determine whether an employer was motivated by race, national origin, or other protected characteristics when using criminal records in a selection decision:

statements that are derogatory concerning the charging party’s protected group;
evidence that the employer requested criminal history information more often for individuals certain racial or ethnic backgrounds or did not give equal opportunity to explain criminal history to all groups;
treating a charging party differently from others not in the same protected group;
results of matched-pair testing that show different treatment because of a protected status; and
results of statistical analysis of applicant data, workforce data, or third party criminal background history data.