Employment

This year brings the 50^th Anniversary of the The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The ADEA was signed into law in December 1967 and took effect in June 1968, 50 years ago. In spite of this long history, a US governmental agency which conducted a recent study on age discrimination in employment, issued a report that in spite of federal and state laws that prohibit age discrimination, approximately 97% percent of employees who experienced age discrimination on the job never reported the discrimination to their employer nor to any government agency.

The release of this shocking statistic however does not come as shocking news to many older New Jersey employees who regularly may be held to a higher standard, assigned heavier workloads, and receive lower wages than their younger and less experienced co-workers.

The results of this study also found that older workers are still stigmatized by unfounded assumptions about age and ability in spite of the fact that statistically older workers today are healthier and working and living longer and are far more educated than older workers of past generations.

Women, blacks and other minorities are sometimes paid less than other co-workers if their employment position has a different name even if they are doing substantially similar work to others who are paid at a higher rate. Starting July 1, 2018, New Jersey employers must pay women, blacks and other protected classes the same as their other employees in non-protected classes for substantially similar work when viewed as a composite of skill, effort and responsibility. The Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act, which was signed into law on April 24, 2018 by Gov. Phil Murphy, takes effect July 1, 2018.

It’s no news to working women that many NJ employers think pregnancy, breastfeeding, and motherhood are incompatible with furthering the company’s business goals. Women have legitimate fears that once they inform their employer that they are pregnant, that their employer will discriminate against them in terms of promotions, training, and being given the tools and opportunities that are essential to excel in their field. At a time when a working women can least afford to lose her job because there will soon be another member of her family to support, it is cruel and tragic to terminate her employment or deny her the opportunities to learn, receive training and opportunities to excel that are afforded to other employees. Not only NJ Employers wrongfully perceive pregnancy, breastfeeding, and motherhood as being  incompatible with a worker’s productivity level, this despicable attitude continues to exist all over the country. By way of example, last week, a California dietary company, who was sued for allegedly firing numerous female employees because they were pregnant and/or not allowing them to return to work after the employees went out on maternity leave, settled the matter by agreeing to pay the multiple victims $50,000.

Businesses understandably seek innovative and new practices to expand their profits and please shareholders. Public entity employers often want to be more effective in achieving their goals.

However, an employer seeking out "new blood" to implement their plan could be a euphemism demonstrating an intention to replace older workers with younger recruits.

The New Jersey Legislature re-introduced a bill which if it passes, will be the strongest pro-employee, anti-arbitration bill in the United States. While it is not yet the law, if it passes, it will tremendously help all victims of employment discrimination in New Jersey. Last year when the bill was introduced it did not pass, so it was re-introduced this year under a new number.

Currently, many employers try to coerce employees and job applicants to waive away their rights to a jury trial if they file a lawsuit alleging discrimination. Some employers will not hire any applicant who refuses to sign an arbitration-only clause which is part of the employment application.

On April 24, 2018, New Jersey’s Governor, Gov. Phil Murphy, signed what is being hailed as the most aggressive equal pay act in the United States. This is great news for

Persons have come to me who lost their job in an alleged a restructuring, where the employer told the employee that he/she was not really being terminated from their position, because the employee=s employment position was eliminated in a purported re-organization, so there was no longer work for the employee.

I have found in my practice that the excuse of a purported organization by the employer may be a subterfuge, a smoke-screen effort by the employer attempting to avoid a wrongful termination discrimination lawsuit.

There are numerous ways to prove when a "re-organization" argument is really a gimmick, an impostor maneuver ploy to deceive the terminated employee into not filing a discrimination lawsuit. I have successfully represented employees who have been let go in a so-called "restructuring" and have been successful in obtaining six figures settlements for public and private employees.

The race and sex of a person should not be a defining factor in whether someone is best qualified to perform the essential tasks of an employment position.

In New Jersey and some other jurisdictions, there is broader coverage for employees’ retaliation claims against employers thanks to one brave female railroad worker who stood up for her rights against her employer, a railroad company.

This is a story of how one brave blue-collar female railroad worker's claim changed the landscape of retaliation law. It is a story that does not get told enough. In it, is the account of how one female who complained about sex discrimination by her supervisor, and then was subsequently retaliated against by her employer, a railroad company, had her retaliation claim eventually reach the United States Supreme Court. In this matter, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry.