Current Events

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

My NJ Employer thinks pregnancy and breastfeeding are incompatible with work

It’s no news to working women that many NJ employers think pregnancy, breastfeeding, and motherhood are incompatible with furthering the company’s business goals. Women have legitimate fears that once they inform their employer that they are pregnant, that their employer will discriminate against them in terms of promotions, training, and being given the tools and opportunities that are essential to excel in their field. At a time when a working women can least afford to lose her job because there will soon be another member of her family to support, it is cruel and tragic to terminate her employment or deny her the opportunities to learn, receive training and opportunities to excel that are afforded to other employees. Not only NJ Employers wrongfully perceive pregnancy, breastfeeding, and motherhood as being  incompatible with a worker’s productivity level, this despicable attitude continues to exist all over the country. By way of example, last week, a California dietary company, who was sued for allegedly firing numerous female employees because they were pregnant and/or not allowing them to return to work after the employees went out on maternity leave, settled the matter by agreeing to pay the multiple victims $50,000.

Read more . . .

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

When my NJ Employer Wants "New Blood"

Businesses understandably seek innovative and new practices to expand their profits and please shareholders. Public entity employers often want to be more effective in achieving their goals.

However, an employer seeking out "new blood" to implement their plan could be a euphemism demonstrating an intention to replace older workers with younger recruits.

Read more . . .

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

News for Employees: Senate Re-introduces New Jersey Bill to Ban All Employment Arbitration Agreements

The New Jersey Legislature re-introduced a bill which if it passes, will be the strongest pro-employee, anti-arbitration bill in the United States. While it is not yet the law, if it passes, it will tremendously help all victims of employment discrimination in New Jersey. Last year when the bill was introduced it did not pass, so it was re-introduced this year under a new number.

Currently, many employers try to coerce employees and job applicants to waive away their rights to a jury trial if they file a lawsuit alleging discrimination. Some employers will not hire any applicant who refuses to sign an arbitration-only clause which is part of the employment application.

Read more . . .

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

African Americans and Unequal Pay: NJ Governor Signs Most Aggressive Equal Pay Act in the Country

On April 24, 2018, New Jersey’s Governor, Gov. Phil Murphy, signed what is being hailed as the most aggressive equal pay act in the United States. This is great news for

Read more . . .

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

If I Lose My NJ Job in a Restructuring or Reorganization, What can I do

Persons have come to me who lost their job in an alleged a restructuring, where the employer told the employee that he/she was not really being terminated from their position, because the employee=s employment position was eliminated in a purported re-organization, so there was no longer work for the employee.

I have found in my practice that the excuse of a purported organization by the employer may be a subterfuge, a smoke-screen effort by the employer attempting to avoid a wrongful termination discrimination lawsuit.

There are numerous ways to prove when a "re-organization" argument is really a gimmick, an impostor maneuver ploy to deceive the terminated employee into not filing a discrimination lawsuit. I have successfully represented employees who have been let go in a so-called "restructuring" and have been successful in obtaining six figures settlements for public and private employees.

The race and sex of a person should not be a defining factor in whether someone is best qualified to perform the essential tasks of an employment position.

Read more . . .

Saturday, April 14, 2018

How One Brave Female Railroad Worker’s Complaint about Retaliation Resulted in Broader Coverage for Retaliation Claims in NJ and Elsewhere

In New Jersey and some other jurisdictions, there is broader coverage for employees’ retaliation claims against employers thanks to one brave female railroad worker who stood up for her rights against her employer, a railroad company.

This is a story of how one brave blue-collar female railroad worker's claim changed the landscape of retaliation law. It is a story that does not get told enough. In it, is the account of how one female who complained about sex discrimination by her supervisor, and then was subsequently retaliated against by her employer, a railroad company, had her retaliation claim eventually reach the United States Supreme Court. In this matter, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry.

Read more . . .

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

What are the differences in the FMLA and New Jersey's FLA?

The Federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and New Jersey’s Family Leave Act (FLA) are very similar in that qualified employees working for employers who are covered under the Acts, are allowed time off work in order take care of Certain family members. In some situations, the leaves are for the same purpose and therefore run concurrently. However, in other situations the employees would be entitled to take separate leaves.

To maximize your amount of leave, if you are a New Jersey employee, you should combine entitlements under both the FLA and FMLA where allowed.

The main difference is that the FMLA allows a qualified employee who is working for an employer covered the FMLA to take time off work because of the employee’s own disability or medical condition which renders him/her temporarily unable to do their job, while the FLA does not.

Read more . . .

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Age Protection Extends to New Jersey Workers over Age 70

Some businesses and public entities incorrectly assume that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) gives age protection only to those workers under 70 years of age. This is because of a clause (frequently misinterpreted by employers to further their own interests) in the LAD stating that nothing in the statute shall be construed to prohibit an employer  from refusing to accept for employment any person over 70 years of age. This clause, as interpreted by the NJ Supreme Court is meant to narrowly apply only to brand new hires, not long term employees who must get their contracts renewed every year and have a pre-existing relationship with the employer.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has held allowing employers to not hire back to work a person over 70 after their contract had expired, would have restricted the intent of the LAD and been contrary to law.  Frequently public employees and private employees have a contract to be renewed every year.

Read more . . .

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

I’m a New Jersey Executive, Can My Employer Force Me to Fly While I Am Pregnant? Pregnant Employees and the Right to Ask for Accommodations at Work

In today’s economy, most women who are pregnant and work cannot not afford to lose their job. They may need the employer to allow reasonable accommodations or adjustments to their work to allow them to keep safely working while pregnant. In New Jersey, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and goes a step further than some other laws to protect women who are pregnant, have given birth or suffer a related medical condition. A pregnant employee in New Jersey has the right to ask for a broad range of reasonable accommodations to allow her to keep working.

Under the NJLAD, it is prohibited for an employer to treat a woman employee that the employer knows, or should know, is affected by pregnancy in a manner less favorable than the treatment of other employees not affected by pregnancy but who are similar in their ability or inability to work.

Read more . . .

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

US Supreme Court News for Those Who Report Securities Law Violations: Narrow Interpretation of Whistleblower in Some Instances under Dodd-Frank Act

On February 21, 2018, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in a case, Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers, that gives a restrictive interpretation of “whistleblower" in certain instances under the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Dodd-Frank Act established a new whistleblower program in 2010. This program encourages persons to provide information relating to a violation of U.

Read more . . .

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Is Someone Too Old to Do Their Job? Age Appropriateness Is a Social Construct

Age discrimination persists as a pervasive and serious problem in the workplace. What some persons consider to be “age appropriateness” is the result of a social construct that is forever changing. Unfortunately, many employers have not caught up with the fact that age is not a factor that should be negatively held against employees in terms of evaluating qualifications to maintain their position. As long as an employee can fulfill their job tasks, their age cannot make them otherwise unqualified or less qualified for their position. There are 72 year olds outperforming 32 year olds all of the time in many occupations.

Read more . . .

← Newer12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Older →

Archived Posts


© 2018 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 Practice | Employment Law Practice

Attorney Website Design by
Zola Creative