"New Jersey Employment Lawyers"

Published on: June 28, 2018

Third Circuit Case Demonstrates How New Jersey’s Whistleblower Law Provides Greater Protection to Health Care Employees Than Federal Employment Law

workplace-615375__340-300x200 The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which hears appeals from decisions in the federal courts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, recently issued a major decision interpreting the scope of coverage of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”). As the Third Circuit explained,

[The] shift from medical emergency management to primary care treatment has resulted in a “grave financial challenge” for hospital administrators. Many of them responded to this economic pressure by engaging in a practice known as “patient dumping.” That term refers to the practice of refusing to offer emergency room treatment to indigent patients who lack medical insurance, or transferring them to other medical facilities before their emergency medical condition has been stabilized. Congress attempted to address this situation by enacting EMTALA. EMTALA imposes certain mandates on hospitals regardless of whether a patient who presents to an emergency room has the ability to pay for treatment.

EMTALA requires hospitals to first examine each patient to determine whether an emergency medical condition exists. “[I]f the examination reveals the patient is suffering from an emergency medical condition, the hospital usually must stabilize the patient before getting into the business of trying to [discharge or] transfer him [or her] elsewhere.”[ A hospital that either (1) fails to properly screen a patient, or (2) releases a patient without first stabilizing his or her emergency medical condition thereby violates EMTALA.

Published on: June 24, 2018

FAQ’s on New Jersey’s Paid Sick Leave Legislation

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

men-1979261__340-300x200 New Jersey has joined nine other states and the District of Columbia in enacting a law to require that employers must provide their employees with paid sick leave. The law is among the toughest in the nation, and imposes many new requirements on employers. Below are some of the most frequently asked questions about New Jersey’s Paid Sick Leave Law.

What employers must provide paid sick leave?

Virtually all of them.

Published on: June 21, 2018

Appellate Division Rules That Entire Controversy Doctrine Has Limited Applicability to Arbitration of Tenure Charges Under New Jersey’s TEACHNJ Act of 2012

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

chalk-1551566__340-300x225 The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court recently addressed a procedural question with significant implications for New Jersey teachers and other teaching staff members fighting tenure charges under the TEACHNJ Act of 2012.

The TEACHNJ Act changed the system for fighting tenure charges. Previously, a teacher or other teaching staff member would have the right to have their appeals heard before an administrative law judge, who would normally have a trial on the merits of the teacher’s objections and defenses. The results would then be sent to the New Jersey Department of Education, which could accept or reject the administrative law judge’s findings. Whatever the outcome, either party could appeal the Department of Education’s decision to the Appellate Division and then to New Jersey’s Supreme Court. Under the TEACHNJ Act, however, the administrative law process was eliminated, and objections to tenure charges are now heard by a single arbitrator in binding arbitration. There are only very limited grounds for appeal.

Recently, a teacher had a series of tenure charges filed against him. He had two separate charges of “inefficiency.” He then had a later tenure charge of “conduct unbecoming” for allegedly inflicting prohibited corporal punishment on a student. He objected that the entire controversy doctrine barred the charges because they occurred before the inefficiency charges were decided and therefore they all should have been brought together.

Published on: April 13, 2018

United States Supreme Court Issues Important Wage and Hour Law Decision

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Wage and hour claims dealing with overtime requirements are among the most contentious in employment law litigation. The United States Supreme Court recently issued a decision exempting one narrow class of employees (“service advisors” at automobile dealerships) from coverage. While the specific effect of the ruling is limited, the reasoning behind it may signal a shift in the way the Supreme Court interprets the exemptions from overtime requirements in federal employment law.

The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act governs wage and hour issues for most employees in the United States. Generally speaking, unless an employee is an “exempt employee” she must receive minimum wage for all hours worked, and overtime pay at the rate of one and a half times her normal pay rate (known as “time and a half”) when she works more than forty hours in a week. Broad categories of employees are exempt, however. The major categories of exemptions are professional, executive and administrative employees. Many other smaller or sub-categories of employees are also exempt.

New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law provides similar coverage for New Jersey employees, who receive protection under both state and federal law. Both laws also prohibit retaliation against employees who file complaints about violations (although there are technical requirements about what constitutes a “complaint”), and both require the employer to pay the employee’s attorneys fees if she prevails in a lawsuit. The main difference is that the Fair Labor Standards Act provides for double damages if the violation is “willful” – this means that if the employer willfully underpaid the employee by $1000, it must pay her $2000 in damages plus reimbursing her for her attorneys fees. The New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, on the other hand, does not provide for double damages.

Published on: February 5, 2018

When Does the Statute of Limitations on Harassment Begin: The Continuing Violation Doctrine

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

By typography-2858715__340-300x150 enacting the Law Against Discrimination, New Jersey has provided its workers with some of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the United States. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination protects against employment discrimination, including harassment, because of these protected categories

race
creed

Published on: February 2, 2018

The United States Supreme Court Issues Major Decision on Tolling of Statute of Limitations in Employment Cases Under Supplemental Jurisdiction

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

partnership-2750197__340-300x200 The United States Supreme Court issued a major decision on tolling the statute of limitations on state law claims while the case is in federal court which has significant impact on New Jersey employment litigation. In the case of Artis v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court answered a major procedural question regarding the interplay of federal and state claims being heard together in federal district court and state statutes of limitations. While the case involved an employment case in District of Columbia, it would be equally applicable to cases brought under New Jersey employment law.

Background

Stephanie Artis worked as a health inspector for the city government of the District of Columbia. She was fired. Thereafter, she filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. She alleged a federal claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (known as “Title VII”). She also sued under District of Columbia law for whistleblower retaliations, false claims and gender discrimination.

Published on: January 22, 2018

Third Circuit Issues Important Decision on Religious Discrimination in Employment

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

votive-candles-2903933__340-300x200 Both New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and the Federal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of their religious practices if they can be reasonably accommodated. In many cases the most difficult question is whether an accommodation which the employer could have provided was “reasonable.” However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision on the unusual question of whether an employee’s honestly and strongly held beliefs could be considered “religious” under Title VII.

Paul Fallon had been an employee of Mercy Medical Center since 1994. In 2012, Mercy instituted a rule that all employees had to receive a flu vaccination each year. Mercy allowed for religious exemptions. Fallon requested and was granted exemptions in 2012 and 2013. However, she was denied in 2014 because Mercy had changed its definition of religious exemption. There was no question that Fallon’s objection was because of his sincerely held belief that the vaccination did more harm than good. However, he cited no religious source, just his belief that it is wrong to cause harm to your own body. Mercy decided that this reason was not “religious” under its policy, and ordered Fallon to get the shot or provide a letter from clergy explaining why he could not get the vaccination for religious reasons. He failed to provide the letter and refused to be vaccinated. Mercy therefore fired him.

Fallon filed suit in Federal District Court alleging that Mercy had fired him because of his religious beliefs, and therefore committed religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. The trial judge disagreed and dismissed his suit. Fallon appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit agreed with the trial judge’s opinion and upheld the decision.

Published on: January 19, 2018

Potential Roadblock for Certain Whistleblower Claims

by Pauline M.K. Young

whistle-2496555__340-300x200 In the case of DiFiore v. CSL Behring, LLC, a former pharmaceutical employee brought an action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against her former employer for retaliation in the form of a wrongful, constructive discharge. In that case, the employee specifically brought claims under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729 and Pennsylvania’s common law wrongful discharge cause of action. She claimed that she had raised concerns about off-label marketing of products which caused her employer to retaliate.

In that case, the District Court instructed the jury that, in order to prove retaliation under the FCA, the employee had to prove that the whistleblowing by the employee was the sole cause for the adverse action (firing or other retaliatory action). However, the plaintiff-employee argued that she need only provide that the whistleblower action was a motivating factor for the wrongful discharge – not that it was the only reason for the adverse employment action. The plaintiff was relying on a prior Third Circuit case, Hutchins v. ABC Corp. However, the Court determined that the “motivating factor” language in the Hutchins case was merely dicta – meaning that the language was extraneous to the decision and does not act as precedential.

The Court also decided that the United States Supreme Court decisions in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v Nassar indicate that a “motivating factor” test is inappropriate. (The Gross case considered a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the Nassar case considered a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.) In both cases, the Supreme Court found that the language “because of” in those laws, equated to the requirement of “but-for” causation. In other words, the adverse action would not have happened “but for” the improper motivation, requiring that to be the exclusive motivation. The ADEA, Title VII, and the FCA all contain that same language.

Published on: November 1, 2017

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Employers Must Pay Employees During Breaks of Twenty Minutes or Less

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

american-963190__340-300x200 Some of the most conflict-ridden areas in New Jersey employment involve wage and hour issues – who needs to be paid, how much, when and for what. An important Federal appeals court decision has shed light on one of the most contested topics in this area – when employees mostly paid for benefits.

The Wage and Hour Legal and Regulatory Framework

Wage and hour issues in New Jersey are governed by New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law and New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law. Employers in New Jersey must also comply with the requirements of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (known as the “FLSA”), and the regulations put out by the United States Department of Labor implementing the FLSA. New Jersey courts follow federal court decisions on the FLSA when interpreting the Wage and Hour Law and the Wage Payment Law. The Regulations which the Department of Labor established are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, known as the “CFR.”

Published on: October 17, 2017

Employees Who are Being Retaliated Against or Discriminated Against by Their Employers Must Be Cautious in Preserving Records for Litigation

by Pauline M.K. Young

racism-2733840__340-300x300 When an employee is being harassed or disciplined in his employment as a result of discrimination or retaliation for the employee’s objections to illegal conduct, there are multiple laws which may provide relief to the employee. These include, for instance, New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (the “LAD”) and New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA,” also known as the “Whistleblower Law.”)

Both Acts may allow the employee to bring a lawsuit against the employer for a wrongful termination or other adverse employment action (i.e. demotion), as well as harassment. When an employer is wrongfully disciplining or retaliating against an employee, it is important for the employee to preserve and maintain records of the wrongful conduct of the employer in order to support her claim that she suffered a wrongful employment action. However, employees need to be cautious in what records they preserve and how they preserve those records.

In the case of Quinlan v. Curtiss Wright Corporation Joyce Quinlan believed that as a result of gender discrimination, her employer had passed her over for a promotion. She then began copying confidential human resources files which she believed supported her claim that she was being discriminated against and she produced the copies in the course of discovery during litigation. The employer later fired her for “taking” the records (while litigation was ongoing). Quinlan then amended her complaint to include the claim that she was retaliated against for essentially participating in the LAD suit against the employer. The Law Against Discrimination not only prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of a protected classification (gender, nationality, religion, race, etc.), but it also prohibits retaliation against a person for opposing discrimination, filing a discrimination complaint, or participating in a LAD proceeding.