Employment

Employees in New Jersey and elsewhere may feel nervous about retiring in their 60's, even when they had previously planned retiring by age 65 or 66 when they were younger workers. Increased costs of living and shrinking pension benefits may be part of the cause of the nervousness for their wanting to extend their retirement age, but anxiety regarding the decision as to the best age to retire can be exacerbated if they perceive they are being pushed out of the workforce by their employer, that their self-determination of when they will choose retire is being taken away from them.

First, employees in NJ should know that in NJ, it is illegal for an employer to fire someone because of their age - even if they are “senior” citizen workers in their 70's and 80's etc. (I personally don’t care for that phrase- “senior citizens” - it’s unfortunately loaded with far too many negative connotations. Hoping that mainstream culture substitutes “venerable” or that something similar will eventually replace it.

While Boards of Education have the right to choose which non-tenured teachers will have their contracts renewed and which they refuse to renew, the refusal cannot be based on illegal reasons. Motherhood is foremost for the continuation of the species! Pregnant women should be protected and supported, not discriminated against! As explained in 

Pregnant teachers in NJ are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as are employees in other professions and this is true even when the pregnant teacher is non-tenured. Motherhood is foremost for the continuation of the species! Pregnant women should be protected and supported, not discriminated against!  I have successfully represented pregnant, non-tenured teachers whose contacts were not renewed and succeeded in recovering money for them.

Boards of Education have the right to decide which non-tenured employees’ contracts will be renewed and which will not be renewed. However, a decision to not renew cannot be based on an illegal reason. Pregnancy is a defined protected class pursuant to the New Jersey Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act (PWFA).

Sexual harassment at work continues to be a problem because it is largely not reported. New Jersey Courts and the US Supreme Court have therefore made it an initially lighter threshold burden to prove a retaliation claim for reporting the sexual harassment than an underlying sex discrimination claim.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-pervasiveness-of-sexual-harassment-in-todays-white-collar-workplace-300679484.

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.