Share

Current Events

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Statistics Show NJ Employees Who Suffer Racial Discrimination at Work Fare Better in State Court than Federal Court

In New Jersey, employees are protected from discrimination in the workplace under both Federal and State laws. Statistics show that race discrimination employees plaintiffs fare better in New Jersey State Court than Federal Court. If you work in NJ, there are other advantages to filing in State Court under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), rather than pursuing your race claim under Federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. A race discrimination Plaintiff can file a NJLAD lawsuit against his employer in State Court without first having to exhaust administrative requirements in a process that is required under the Federal Law, Title VII.  If a person wants to file a race claim under Title VII, he must first file an administrative claim with the EEOC. This is not required if a race discrimination plaintiff files under the NJLAD in State Court; he can file his lawsuit directly and more expeditiously in NJ Superior Court.

In Federal Court, assuming the employee subsequently passes the hurdle which gives him a right to sue under Title VII, the EEOC itself only thereafter pursues filing a Federal charge in Court in a fraction of those cases. That is true of claims for other forms of discrimination as well. 

By way of example, the Huffington Post reported that in one year, over twenty thousand claims for one type of discrimination were filed with the EEOC but it only pursued charges in 121 of those claims. After they receive a Right to Sue Letter, employees may hire a private attorney to the file a claim in Court under Title VII, but by that phase in the process, much time is lost.

The Federal Judicial Center is the research arm of the Federal Courts. The Center found that nationwide, Federal Judges terminated 12.5% of employment-discrimination cases before the suits reached the trial stage through Summary Judgment proceedings where they found against the employee plaintiffs. The Center found that it was it was the employers, and not the employees, in the majority of those cases, who requested the summary judgment proceedings to attempt to get the case dismissed before it went to trial. By contrast in Federal Court, only 3% of contract cases and 1.7% of personal-injury and property-damage lawsuits were dismissed via Summary Judgment proceedings as compared to 12.5% of employment-discrimination cases.

Motions for Summary judgement are filed after all of the discovery phase of the litigation has been completed, with Answers to Interrogatories, Document Production, Responses to Requests for Admissions, Depositions of Parties and Witnesses completed. A Motion for Summary Judgment may be brought by either the employee or the employer, but is typically brought by the employer/defendant against the plaintiff/employee in an attempt to get the case dismissed before it gets a chance to go before a jury. When the employer files a Motion for Summary Judgment, he is alleging there are no material facts that are at issue, and the judge should decide the case as a matter of law and dismiss the case. When the Court grants Summary Judgment in favor of the employer, the employee’s lawsuit never proceeds to trial and the case is dismissed. Summary judgement is is frequently granted in employment discrimination lawsuits and ends the employee’s case against the employer.

In a study by the Harvard law and Policy Review, if found that employment discrimination Plaintiffs in Federal Court fared poorly compared to other claims. The employment discrimination plaintiffs won at only 15% of employment discrimination cases during a three decade period in Federal Court. This is in stark contrast to the plaintiffs prevailing and receiving a judgment in their favor in 51% in all other civil cases.

What You Can Do

I am an aggressive and compassionate employment law attorney who is experienced in successfully representing employees who were subjected to racial harassment and retaliation in private and public employment. I only represent employees and never represent employers. I have been successful in obtaining six figures monetary compensation for victims of racial employment discrimination.

If you have experienced racism at work, or if you reported it and no action was taken, if you are thinking of resigning, or think you will be fired, or have been fired, it is important that you consult with an attorney who is experienced in discrimination.

If you are being subjected to workplace discrimination, contact Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law today for a free consultation.

Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law serves clients throughout New Jersey, including Bergen, Middlesex, Essex, Hudson, Monmouth, Ocean, Union, Camden, Passaic, and Morris Counties with locations in southern, central, western and northern NJ to meet with clients.


Archived Posts

2019
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2018
December
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2017
2016
December
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
2015
2013
2012



© 2019 Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law | Disclaimer
466 Kinderkamack Road , Oradell , NJ 07649
| Phone: 201-599-9600

Employment/Civil Rights Law | Disability Law | Employee Performance Evaluations | Family Law | Divorce Mediation Services | Wills and Estate Planning | School Law and Educational Rights | Municipal Court Appearances | General Practice | | Family Law | Employment Law | Testimonials

Attorney Website Design by
Zola Creative