Current Events

Concerns among some legal civil rights activists, that were raised by the June 28, 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Org. Opinion, were exacerbated by the line of questioning of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on her confirmation to be a US Supreme Court Justice.

These concerns arise not only because the Dobbs opinion overturns a 50-year-old precedent of established law. These concerns are also driven by the line of questioning put forth to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, and statements made by US Senators during, and subsequent to,  her confirmation hearings in March 2022 during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

During the confirmation hearings, some Senators stated it was their opinion certain issues previously decided by the US Supreme Court could also be overturned and such legal issues be returned to the states for the individual states to decide them on a state-by-state basis.

Gay rights activists have concerns that the nineteen-year-old established legal precedent of the right to same-sex sexual relationships as set by ruling of the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas may be overturned by the Court. This concern in the gay and lesbian community has recently arisen as a result of the leaked US Supreme Court Opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs Opinion overturns the almost 50-year-old precedent of Roe v.

On May 20, 2022 the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of NJ, in case brought against AtlantiCare Med. Sys., upheld the termination of an employee because of her posts to Facebook on views she held regarding the Black Lives Matter movement. This matter involved a private employer who terminated one of its at-will employees for posting “racially insensitive comments” about the Black Lives Matter movement on her personal Facebook account. The issue raised was whether the First Amendment or Article I, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey Constitution prevents a private employer from terminating an at-will employee for posting about the Black Lives Matter movement on her Facebook account.

As discussed prior, many persons who follow the evolution of the law as to the rights of employees and other individuals, wonder if the US Supreme Court in past years has overturned its own precedents. This concern arises in part from the recently leaked US Supreme Court Opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Opinion contains explanations purporting that it is not unusual for the Court to overturn long-standing precedents.

However, in almost all the cases cited to in the leaked Dobbs Opinion, that were cases which the Court had overturned, the cases were overturned for the purpose of expanding individual rights and a person’s personal freedoms, giving people more legal rights and personal autonomy free of government restrictions on their personal autonomy.

Many persons who follow the evolution of the law as to the rights of employees and other individuals, wonder if the US Supreme Court in past years has overturned its own precedents. This concern arises in part from the recently leaked US Supreme Court Opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs Opinion overturns the almost 50-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.

Yes, there are binding precedents in the US Supreme Court as to certain employment law decisions that states must follow. Both federal courts and all state courts are obligated to follow Supreme Court precedents because Supreme Court precedents are binding precedents on all state and federal courts. This is true for employment discrimination cases and other types of employees’ rights cases. The US Supreme Court in recent years with few exceptions has issued rulings exhibiting little encouragement for workers’ rights.

By way of example, in 2020, employee rights’ advocates were alarmed when the US Supreme Court ruled that Catholic school teachers cannot sue for disability or age employment discrimination under federal laws.

Can an employer terminate an employee for "insubordination" for failing to follow the employer's designated chain-of-command structure for making workplace complaints about unethical or illegal activity? In some situations, the answer is, “Yes.”

The NJ Supreme Court in Fleming v. Corr. Healthcare Solutions, Inc., decided the issue of whether an employer could dictate to its employees the manner in which complaints of illegal workplace conduct could be made under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, (CEPA) N.

Is there a difference in quid pro quo and hostile work environment claims in NJ? Yes. Generally American case law divides sexual harassment petitions into two basic types of claims - quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile work environment. Both may exist simultaneously and frequently do. Quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile work environment require different facts to be proved for the claim to be valid. 

Quid Pro Quo

“Quid pro quo” is a Latin phrase roughly translated in English to mean an exchange of “something for something” in which one transfer is contingent upon the other.

Motherhood is foremost for the continuation of the species! Pregnant women should be protected and supported, not discriminated against! I am experienced and successful in representing pregnant employees, including non-tenured teachers whose contacts were not renewed, and succeeded in recovering money for them. If you believe you were the target of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, you should contact this office today for a free consultation. I have successfully litigated pregnancy discrimination cases in both federal and state court. The Pregnant Women’s Fairness Act amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) to specifically include pregnancy as a designated protected class.

Despite Declining Birth Rates in the US, More Persons Are Filing Pregnancy Employment Discrimination Lawsuits

Despite declining birth rates in the US, more persons are filing pregnancy employment discrimination federal lawsuits according to statistics released by a government agency.

I am an aggressive and compassionate employment law attorney who is experienced and successful in representing LGBTQ executives and in obtaining monetary compensation for their being subjected to harassment and discrimination. With the recent cultural bent and media propagation toward classical, archetypal anti-LGBTQ hate mongering, and anti-LGBTQ misinformation campaigns spread through certain news networks and social media, some LGBTQ persons are concerned it may lead to an increase in the harassment of LGBTQ persons in the workplace. In New Jersey, the Law Against Discrimination N.J.S.

New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq.