Current Events

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.

Terminated employees or employees who were put on notice that their job position was soon to be eliminated, have come to me in a quandary when they suspect their job was not really eliminated. All too frequently, their instincts prove correct - it was a fake job elimination. Attorneys must employ several legal strategies to uncover the economic reality of a so-called “job elimination”.

NJ employees have Whistleblower Protection under both the CEPA statute and the lesser known common law, which whistleblower common law protection in the legal profession is referred to as a “Pierce” claim.

The relevant statutory whistleblower protection is the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). CEPA, under § 34:19-3, mandates in part that an employer is prohibited from taking any retaliatory action against an employee because he/she discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or public body; or objects to, or refuses to participate in any activity, policy or practice of the employer that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law,  or is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare or protection of the environment, or, in the case of an employee who is certified health care professional, reasonably believes constitutes improper quality of patient care.

An employee’s whistleblower statute claim under CEPA arises when the employee reports or refuses to participate in as described above, what they reasonably believe to be the employer’s illegal conduct and is then suspended, terminated, or has other retaliatory adverse action taken against him/her by the employer.

Under NJ’S common law claim, an employee has a whistleblower cause of action, a “Pierce claim,” for wrongful termination when the termination is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy.

Yes, if your employer discriminated in any manner against you because you attempted to file a claim for benefits, even if you are denied benefits, you may file a claim for unlawful retaliation. A NJ Workers’ Compensation Retaliation claim may be filed in State Court. New Jersey employers are strictly prohibited from retaliating against a worker for filing or attempting to file a claim for Workers' Compensation benefits.

In its anti-retaliation provision, N.J.

Clients have come to me devastated when their employers informed them that their employment contract was not being renewed. This is especially disheartening when it is after years of faithful service and a history of successful performance. A question that is commonly asked is, “Can this be illegal age discrimination, if I was not actually fired?” The simple answer is “Yes” if the facts support discrimination based on age. The New Jersey Supreme Court has definitely held that a failure to renew a contract based on age is the equivalent of an actual termination based on age, which under the NJLAD is illegal.

I have successfully represented persons in their 70's and 80's who were long-term employees of public entities and private employers, who did not have their contract renewed after years of service and was successful in obtaining monetary compensation for them.

New Jersey recognized LGBTQ Pride Month as June in keeping with the national LGBTQ Pride month of June. Towns in New Jersey such as Englewood in Bergen County gave special recognition to the LGBTQ community in June. June was chosen as the special month for LGBTQ Pride because the Stonewall riots took place in June of 1969. The Stonewall riots in New York City is the most widely known of LGBTQ resistance/confrontation historical events. On its 50^th anniversary, Stonewall is arguably the most famous rebellion having the most social impact regarding gays and lesbians fighting back on harassment and discrimination because of their sexual orientation and identity.

Clients have sought my help when they signed, or thought they might have signed, an arbitration agreement given to them by their employer. Frequently, the employer did not provide them with a copy, and sometimes signing an arbitration agreement is part of the written job application process. Too often, employees only become fully cognizant of the agreement, when the employer produces it after a lawsuit is filed by the employee, in an attempt to get the employee’s case dismissed by the court.

If you signed, or think you might have signed, an arbitration agreement, and believe that your employer illegally discriminated or retaliated against you, or committed other illegal acts against you, you should contact this law firm immediately. This law firm has a successful track record of recovering money for clients who signed arbitration agreements and then later filed lawsuits against the employer.

Certain hot topics in the news have a way of becoming a topic of discussion in the workplace and employees wonder if they have a right to discuss these matters under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or if they can be fired for discussing politics at work.

First, much of this depends on whether you work for a private or a public employer. The First Amendment was written to restrict the government’s curtailing one’s right of freedom of speech but not on a private employer’s imposing restrictions of freedom of speech on its employees as a condition of employment.