Employment

Some unscrupulous employers are becoming savvier about avoiding lawsuits when they fire an employee for an illegal reason. One of the ruses that devious employers may implement is telling their employees that they are undergoing a massive overhaul of their business structure so that it will be an all-new model. They then tell the employees that they are terminated but encourage them to apply for a position within the new business model.

A police officer in the City of East Orange in Essex County NJ, earlier this year sued the the City of East Orange Police Department and his supervisor under Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.

For NJ employees who experience discrimination on the job because of their weight, relief is hopefully in sight with the introduction of legislature bills that would make discrimination based on an employee’s height or weight illegal, except in those extremely rare instances where a certain weight or height is a bona fide occupational qualification. Weight discrimination disproportionately affects women. It’s no secret that individuals, usually women, are too frequently discriminated against in hiring and promotions because of their weight. Pressure on individuals, particularly women, to maintain certain weight appearance standards contributes to eating disorders and lifelong health issues. No person should suffer discrimination on the job because the boss does not care for the employee’s weight or height.

As the average age of those in the US workforce is getting older, there is a corresponding rise in ageism in the workplace. The oldest employees are the most disadvantaged in locating new employment if they are terminated, yet too often both private corporate and public employers will not hesitate to terminate even the oldest worker even though the worker is meeting the employer’s legitimate business expectations. If you were fired and think age may have been a factor, you may have a valid claim. Don’t sit on your rights.

If you are an older worker who was terminated while younger workers were retained, you should contact this office immediately for a free consultation.

As I am sure my readers already know, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., decided June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the long-established precedent of a woman’s Constitutional right to an abortion, thereby returning the issue of abortion rights left to be decided by individual states. This gives rise to a vast discrepancy in the breadth of legal rights granted to women dependent on which state a woman resides in, although the facts of two such women may otherwise be identical.

Some legal scholars deduce that we may expect to see an impetus for other rights which are long-settled precedents by the US Supreme Court, to  be overturned and similarity returned to individual states, whose state courts would then decide the legal rights of men and women in those states.

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.