If you are a NJ employee who reported to your employer about another co-worker general racist comments that you found disturbing, and your employer retaliated against you for such complaining, you may have a valid retaliation claim. If you complained to your employer about another co-worker racist comments about another employee who is not you or about a customer, and your employer retaliated against you for such complaining, you may have a valid retaliation claim.
A question that has been raised by many is if they reported to their employer about a co-worker’s sexist comments, lewd or otherwise, or age biased comments, or racist comments that were made in the workplace but not directed specifically at them, and their employer retaliated against them, could that be illegal retaliation? Under NJ Law, the answer is, “Yes”. If you are a worker who reported discrimination and your employer retaliated against you, you should contact this office today for a free consultation.
The NJ Supreme Court has made it clear that reporting biased statements against any protected class member is “protected” activity, and retaliation for such reporting may be actionable even when the biased statements were not directed at the reported employee or any identified member of that protected class.
This is good news for employees who are disturbed by the racism of their co-workers and who would like to report racist comments, even when it is not directed toward them personally. These employees who in good faith and conscience report such racism, in addition to a fear of possible retaliation by the racist employee, may have concerns that their reporting will not be protected activity for which an employer’s retaliation is illegal.
In the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. §§ 10:5-1 to 10:5-42, in the context of retaliation claims, when an employee voices a complaint about behavior or activities in the workplace that he or she thinks are discriminatory, he or she is not required to prove that there was an identifiable discriminatory impact upon someone of the requisite protected class or race.
Court Rejects Narrow Interpretation of the LAD; No Requirement of Evidence of Actual Discrimination to Find a Retaliatory Demotion.
In a 2013 case before the NJ Supreme Court, a employee reported his supervisor's general offensive comments about female employees and his affair with a subordinate employee which he found to be offensive and believed violated the LAD on the basis of sex. He alleged that employer retaliated against him for such reporting and he filed a lawsuit against the employer for breach of contract and violations of the Law Against Discrimination and New Jersey’s whistleblower statute, Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. §§ 34:19-1 to 34:19-14.
Plaintiff alleged his employer demoted him in retaliation for reporting his supervisor's offensive comments about female employees and his affair with a subordinate employee. The NJ Supreme Court held that under the LAD, an employee who voiced complaints and allegedly suffered a retaliatory employment action needed only to demonstrate a good-faith belief that the complained-of conduct violated the LAD and a retaliation against him resulted. The Court held that an identifiable victim of actual discrimination was not required.
The LAD does not only protect those who complain about directly demonstrable discriminatory acts. It intends to protect individually aggrieved employees as well as the public's strong interest in a discrimination-free workplace.
The law does not require that a Plaintiff accurately understand the fine legal distinctions within the LAD, or that a Plaintiff be able to prove that there was an identifiable discriminatory impact upon someone of the requisite protected class, be it age, race or sex, etc. On the contrary, the court understands that most Plaintiffs are not lawyers. As long as the complaint is made in a good faith belief that the complained of conduct is in violation of the LAD, and the employer subsequently took an adverse action or discriminated against the Plaintiff because of the complaint, that is sufficient for purposes of pursuing a cause of action of illegal retaliation discrimination under the LAD.
In keeping with this, NJ Supreme Court Justice Helen E. Hoens held that:
“Under the LAD, an employee who voices complaints and allegedly suffers a retaliatory employment action need only demonstrate a good-faith belief that the complained-of conduct violates the LAD. An identifiable victim of actual discrimination is not required...
The LAD's primary goal is the eradication of discrimination, and it prohibits retaliation against those who oppose the behavior it forbids. The Court rejects a narrow interpretation of the LAD that requires evidence of actual discrimination to find a retaliatory demotion. Instead, considering the record in light of the LAD's broad remedial purposes, the Court accepts as true that DeCraine used the alleged offensive language and that plaintiff complained about it. Although there was no evidence any women heard the language, the LAD does not only protect those who complain about directly demonstrable discriminatory acts. It is intended to protect individually aggrieved employees as well as the public's strong interest in a discrimination-free workplace. These important purposes should not be limited by a requirement that a plaintiff prove the existence of an identifiable victim of actual discrimination.”
If You Quit Your Job, You May Lose Right to Prevail in a Lawsuit
If you are thinking of quitting, or think you will be fired, you should contact this office immediately for a free consultation to discuss your options in the safest way for you. In many instances of discrimination, if you quit your job, you may lose right to prevail in a lawsuit unless you first take certain legally required measures to preserve your job while you are still employed.
Let Me Fight for You
I am successful in bringing employee lawsuits against governmental entities and private employers and recovering money for victims of whistleblower retaliation, age, race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, and other discrimination. If you have been fired, not had your contract renewed, think you are being pushed out of your job or retaliated against, you should contact this office immediately for a free consultation.
Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law represents workers throughout the entire state, including Hackensack, Jersey City, Newark, Irvington, Orange, East Orange, Trenton, Paterson, Montclair, Elizabeth, North Brunswick, Cherry Hill, Vineland, Union, Plainfield, Hamilton Township, Lakewood, Edison, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Franklin, Lakewood, and in every NJ County, including Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, Essex, Monmouth, Somerset, Ocean, Union, Camden, Passaic, Morris, Gloucester, Atlantic, Burlington, Camden Counties.