Disability Discrimination

The US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford, regarding disabled retired employees and whether there is a right to continuing health care benefits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal statute. The ruling resolved a division between circuit courts on how to apply the Americans with Disabilities Act in certain circumstances. In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Court determined that the Americans with Disabilities Act “ADA” generally applies only to disabled job applicants and disabled employees, but not to disabled retirees who are no longer employed and who do not desire a job.

Earlier this year, a bill was introduced into the New Jersey Legislature, in the Senate, NJ S-4075, and its companion partisan bill, A-4981, in the State Assembly, whose goals are to ensure that there are reasonable safeguards on the use of systems using artificial intelligence and related technologies in places of employment and for public services. This bill affects all level employees including managers and those in executive positions. See 12/18/2023 NJ Employment Discrimination Attorney, Artificial Intelligence and Discrimination Against High-Earner Employees with the Most Exposure.

Automated Employment Decision-making Systems Should Be Regulated: Unregulated, AI Generated, Decision-making Systems in Places of Employment Are Held Not Accountable to be in Compliance with Discrimination Laws and Other Laws.

Don’t Sit on Your Rights

If you are an employee who is experiencing discrimination, don’t sit on your rights.

A lout is an awkward, ill-mannered, or uncouth person. It typically refers to a boorish man who displays a distinct lack of respect for social norms or a basic comprehension of acceptable social norms. It can also imply foolishness or general stupidity. A lout can create a racially hostile work environment without any conscious and deliberate intent to cause harm.

“Intent” Is Simply Not Part of the Claim.

If you are a New Jersey employee who was illegally fired while you were out on family leave, you may be able to file a lawsuit under the New Jersey Family Leave Act or the federal Family Medical Leave Act. While the New Jersey Family Leave Act and the federal Family Medical Leave Act have many similarities, they have differences as to who is eligible to file a claim. Under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), in addition to a qualifying employee being allowed time off to time off to care for a family member, an employee may qualify under the FMLA for family leave in order to take care of his or her own serious health condition. See July 27 blog on new amendments. Under New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA), an employee is only allowed time off to care for a family member, but does not qualify for family leave in order to take care of his or her own serious health condition.

After many had negotiations with legislators and employee rights groups, New Jersey’s Family Leave Act’s changes and new qualifications finally became effective in New Jersey on July 17, 2026. These changes expand job-protected leave for many workers across the state. More workers are now covered to take protected leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition or bond with a newborn child or newly adopted child within one year of the child’s birth or placement, and be restored to the same or equivalent position upon end of the leave.

IN A NUTSHELL, AMONG THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FAMILY LEAVE ACT CHANGES EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 2026 ARE:

 Lowering the employment requirement from 12 months to 3 months.

Reducing the hours-worked requirement from 1,000 hours to 250 hours during the previous 12 months.

When women and minority supervisors, and other protected classes are maligned by their subordinate employees to those higher in authority over the supervisor, it could affect the supervisor’s employment status.  Supervisors are not insulated from the effects of illegal prejudice and bias of employees who are subordinate to them in authority.

When Biased Animosity of a Subordinate Employee Leads to Their Supervisor’s Demotion or Termination, this Bias May Be Imputed to the Employer Who May Be Held Liable for an Illegal Termination in Some Instances, Even if the Employer, himself, Has No Illegal Prejudice.

Don’t Sit on Your Rights.

If you are an employee who believes you are being discriminated against for illegal reasons, you should contact this office today for a free consultation.

Companies who hire workers are more frequently outsourcing certain traditional responsibilities to another company. Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, courts often treat two differently-named businesses, (or a parent company and its subsidiary) as "joint employers" if one company, or the parent company, exercises substantial control over some of the other’s operations, or employment decisions, HR policies, or conditions of work. Naming all connected entities ensures that the one company cannot use a technicality to avoid liability.

Sometimes an employee is hired by a company and his paychecks are paid by a different company. Or the hiring company tells the employees if they think there is discrimination, they should report it to HR, but the HR department is within another named company.

When an employee files a discrimination or retaliation claim, it is important to identify the correct employer. Sometimes an employee works for a business which has a parent corporation. A dominating parent corporation may use a subsidiary corporation to hide engaging in illegal, fraudulent or wrongful conduct in an attempt to avoid liability. In other situations, even when the parent company is not willfully and knowingly engaging in wrongful conduct, the parent company may be held liable for the actions of the smaller company under one of two legal doctrines: the “Integrated Employer Doctrine” or the “Joint Employer Doctrine.”  The “Integrated Employer Doctrine” is when both the parent and smaller company are upon examination of certain facts, one single employer.

Yes. If you are a covered New Jersey employee who is terminated in a mass layoff according to the conditions set forth in the New Jersey WARN Act, you are entitled to severance pay. Generally, NJ employers are not required to give severance pay to terminated workers unless there is a contractual term between the employer and worker that stipulates the conditions and rate of pay. If there is a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that stipulates the conditions for severance, then severance must be paid according to the terms of the CBA.

However, in the case of a mass layoff in New Jersey, NJ workers are entitled to severance pursuant to the terms in the New Jersey WARN Act, N.

New Jersey laws mandates that an employer may not discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because they perceive the employee to be disabled. The employee does not,  in fact,  have to actually be disabled. If the employer discriminates against an employee because he perceives him to to be disabled, it is a violation of the employee’s civil rights under the NJ Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). This may happen when the employee had a prior disability from which he is now fully recovered, such as from a sports injury, cancer, certain heart-related events. When an employee has a history of a disability, the employer may perceive them to be disabled long after they are no longer disabled.

A Performance Improvement Plan, PIP, standing alone with no other evidence and no other action, is not necessarily considered an actionable “adverse action” for a discrimination claim. However, when there is other evidence of discrimination, an undeserved PIP may be an illegal attempt to hide an illegal discriminatory motive in a termination. Employees who are given a Performance Improvement Plan, generally are given 30 or 60, or less frequently, 90 days to meet the goals of the PIP or face a possible termination. Unscrupulous employers who want to terminate a worker who is in a protected class, such as race, age, sex,  etc., for discriminatory reasons may give a PIP to the worker with vague goals, no clear language or bench marks, to have a bogus excuse to fire the worker, in a pre-emptive strike to build a legal defense in the event the employee subsequently files a discrimination lawsuit.