"New Jersey Employment Lawyers"

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

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”).

Published on: March 9, 2021

Federal Appeals Court Rules that Psychological Examinations for Applicants for Law Enforcement Officer Positions Cannot Be Used to Discriminate Against Qualified Applicants

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A Federal Appeals Court’s recent precedential decision in the case of Gibbs v. City of Pittsburgh may have profound implications for New Jersey civil service appeals from psychological disqualification of law enforcement officer applicants.

Background

Christopher Gibbs applied to be a police officer with the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Police Department. He was an honorably discharged Marine and had been accepted for employment with five other law enforcement agencies. Similar to the practice in New Jersey and as required by Pennsylvania state law, after he was found otherwise qualified Pittsburgh offered Gibbs an offer of employment conditioned upon passing an examination to determine whether he was cop psychologically fit for the job. Gibbs had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). The examining doctor found him unfit because of his ADHD. The psychologists conducting the examination ignored the fact that Gibbs’s ADHD was under control, that five other departments had found him psychologically fit, that he had unblemished records as a police officer and a Marine, and they never explained how Gibbs’s ADHD would interfere with his ability to perform his duties as a police officer.

Published on: February 2, 2021

Appellate Division Allows New Jersey Employment Law Case Against Casino for Whistleblowing, Discrimination and Harassment to Proceed to Jury

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Appellate Division recently reversed the dismissal of a casino employee’s lawsuit for whistleblower retaliation, discrimination and sexual harassment, demonstrating again that New Jersey employment law provides some of the country’s strongest employee protections, while also demonstrating the limits of those protections.

Background

In that case, Fox v. DGMB Casino, LLC, Regina Fox was employed as director of security by DGMB Casino, LLC (the corporate name for Resorts Casino Hotel), and had worked there for thirty seven years. She was sixty two. As director of security, she was in charge of staffing requirements and other regulatory mandates of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement. Any changes in staffing were required to be reported to the Division.

Published on: January 27, 2021

Appellate Division Issues New Jersey Employment Law Decision on Applicability of Rice Notice to Tenured Teachers

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Appellate Division recently issued an important New Jersey employment law decision concerning the due process rights of tenured teachers.

Tenured teachers have significantly more protections than untenured teachers.

An untenured teacher is essentially an “employee-at-will” who may be terminated without cause; however, an untenured teacher has the right to require that her board of education discuss her termination in public session. Thus, the board cannot discuss an untenured teacher’s employment without first giving the untenured teacher formal notice of the intention to discuss her employment and the opportunity to require that it be held in public; this notice is referred to as a “Rice Notice” and derives from the Open Public Meetings Act.

Published on: December 18, 2020

Opinions in Other Areas of New Jersey Law Provide Guidance When Challenging Arbitration Agreements in New Jersey Employment Contracts

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

It is interesting that the trend in New Jersey employment law is to enforce arbitration agreements in employment contracts, while at the same time finding them unenforceable in consumer and commercial contracts. However, the law is the same: whatever the area, arbitration agreements are interpreted and enforced – or not enforceable – under New Jersey contract law. It’s therefore worth looking at two recent opinions in these areas to see what can be learned.

The Knight Case: Consumer Contracts and Consumer Fraud

In the first, a published opinion in case of Knight v. Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey stuck down an arbitration agreement which the defendants tried to enforce in a consumer fraud lawsuit over the sale of solar panels. After Knight sued, Vivint filed a motion to courthouse-1223280__340-300x200 dismiss her complaint and enforce an arbitration agreement which required the parties to arbitrate their disputes.

Published on: November 11, 2020

New Jersey Attorney General Directives on Release of Police Officer Disciplinary Records Will Affect Discovery in Employment Law Cases

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Background

In the wake of the death of George Floyd, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal issued two directives amending New Jersey’s Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures (commonly referred to as the “Attorney General Guidelines” or the “IAPP”). The thrust of these directives is to allow for the disclosure of New Jersey police-1714956__340-300x200 law enforcement officer disciplinary records to promote transparency and confidence in police departments and internal affairs disciplinary procedures, as well as to broaden the discovery available to criminal defendants. Those issues are worthy of a dissertation in themselves, but here I want to focus briefly on their effect in New Jersey employment litigation.

Problems Shielding Records in Employment Law Cases

Published on: November 3, 2020

United States District Court Rules for Police Officers in New Jersey Employment Law Case

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Federal versus State Courts for New Jersey Employment Law

Employees who sue their employers for violating New Jersey employment law most often choose to litigate in state court because New Jersey employment law and courts are viewed as more favorable to employees, while employers seek to litigate in Federal court, because federal courts and employment law are seen as courthouse-1223280__340-300x200 more friendly to employers. However, there are exceptions. For instance, public employees sometimes have additional remedies under federal employment law, and employees can litigate their state and federal law claims together in federal court. A good example of this can be seen in a decision in Chesler vs. City of Jersey City by Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the United States District (New Jersey’s federal trial court).

The Chesler Case

Published on: October 29, 2020

Terminated Firefighter Wins Reinstatement in New Jersey Civil Service Appeal

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A recent appellate decision in the case In the Matter of Christopher D’Amico, City of Plainfield Fire Department demonstrated once again that New Jersey civil service employees have an effect means of redress for when they are wrongfully disciplined.

civil-servcie
The D’Amico Case

Christopher D’Amico passed the New Jersey Civil Service test and was hired to be a firefighter by the City of Plainfield, a civil service jurisdiction. As part of his application, D’Amico was required to prove their residency. D’Amico submitted several documents, including an insurance card. He admitted that he modified the card to list his actual residence in Plainfield. Plainfield’s hiring committee recommended against hiring D’Amico because of the alteration, but the Fire Chief hired him anyway. D’Amico attended the fire academy. A citizen questioned several cadets’ residencies. The concern about D’Amico was determined to be unfounded, but the City reexamined his application. Even though the address was accurate and the change was known by the City when it hired him – and was admitted by D’Amico – the Director of Public Safety ordered the Chief to terminate D’Amico’s employment. When D’Amico and two other cadets reported to the Department for their first day of work they were fired, in D’Amico’s case not because of his residence, but because of the alteration.

Published on: October 22, 2020

Supreme Court Expands Enforceability of Arbitration Policies in New Jersey Employment Law Decision

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Supreme Court once again expanded the enforceability of arbitration agreements under New Jersey employment law. In its opinion in Skuse vs. Pfizer, Inc., the Court left in place the requirements necessary for agreements to arbitrate employee/employer disputes columns-round-300x201 under New Jersey employment law, but in its application let the exceptions swallow the rule.

Pfizer’s Arbitration Agreement

Pfizer adopted an arbitration “agreement” – actually, more of a policy. It was not a contract signed by an employee and Pfizer. Rather, the employee was deemed to have agreed to arbitrate employment disputes if she continued working for Pfizer for sixty days after the policy’s effective date. Employees were notified by email (to over 28,000 employees) about the policy and given a deadline to “acknowledge” having received it. Whether the employees did or did not acknowledge receipt, they would be deemed to have “agreed” to the policy by their continued employment. There was a training module with four slides which purported to explain the policy; one of the slides gave the employees the option to print a copy, but they were not given a copy by Pfizer; another thanked the employee for taking the training. In the FAQ section of the training module employees were told that if they did not agree they would be fired.

Published on: August 25, 2020

Appellate Division Issues Important New Jersey Employment Law Decision on Whistleblower Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Employment Law Evidence Issues

Our employment lawyers represent employees and employers in all aspects of New Jersey employment law. One of the most litigated issues is the evidence which an employee must present to demonstrate that retaliation or discrimination was behind an adverse action, such as supreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200 firing or demotion. The Appellate Division recently issued an important decision on the ability of jurors to infer retaliation from circumstantial evidence.

The Yatauro Case