|
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
I Am a Breastfeeding Mother and My Employer Will Not Let Me Express Milk or Pump Milk While I Am at Work. What Can I Do?
Let’s face it: if men were breastfeeding and required breaks at work to pump their milk, whether or not they had a civil right to breastfeed, which for working people naturally entails being allowed breaks at work to pump milk, would not even be an issue. There would be dedicated spaces at work to pump milk.
For years progressive attorneys and women’s rights groups have lobbied for civil rights of women who breastfeed to be allowed time at work to pump or express milk. While a federal law was passed in 2010 called the Break Time for Nursing Mothers Law, there was wiggle room for employers with less than 50 employees to circumvent the law if they could prove enforcing it would created an undue hardship on the business.Read more . . .
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Persons may wonder if harassment is actionable, when they are being ridiculed or otherwise harassed at work by members of their same sex when they do not perceive the harassment as necessarily being “sexual” in nature, i.e., they do not feel like they are being sexually “ hit on” by the harasser, and they do not perceive it as the harasser being sexually or otherwise attracted to them. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Read more . . .
Monday, December 4, 2017
It is rare that a working woman has not known someone, be it herself or others, who had experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. While women are not the only victims, more women are coming out of the closet as to reporting such harassment. Read more . . .
Thursday, October 19, 2017
As stated in my last article, if an employee believes he/she has a claim for two or more types discrimination when terminated by the same employer, the terminated employee is bound by the “Entire Controversy Doctrine.” All claims by one employee arising out of the same wrongful acts of an employer, should be filed together within the same lawsuit.
However, when there is more than one employee who has a claim against the same employer, it requires a more careful analysis as to whether, in certain specific circumstances, New Jersey law allows for them to each file a lawsuit separately or of they should join together as plaintiffs in one lawsuit. Again, in certain circumstances, the Entire Controversy Doctrine may require two or more employees to join together in one lawsuit and not file separately. I recently represented several female employees in one discrimination lawsuit that alleged harassment, retaliation, and illegal constructive discharge. Read more . . .
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Unfortunately, yes, it sometimes happens that an employer illegally discriminates against a woman with breast cancer because of a bias against women in addition to disability discrimination. One of the more common forms of discrimination against a female worker with breast cancer is when the employer will not allow an extended FMLA leave that the employer routinely gives to male employees with cancer. Rising female executives may still have to combat a good old boys' club atmosphere which is hostile to the advancement of woman. Read more . . .
Saturday, September 16, 2017
Yes, a person can sue their employer for both types of discrimination. If a person believes he/she has a claim for both age and race discrimination when terminated by the same employer, the terminated employee is bound by the “Entire Controversy Doctrine.” In the context of a wrongful termination, it is a legal principle mandating that all claims by one employee arising out of the same wrongful acts of an employer, should be filed together under different counts within the same lawsuit.
Therefore, if a terminated employee believes that discrimination based on both race and age (or race and gender, or age and sex, or any two “protected classes” was a contributing factor leading to the employee’s termination, both claims should be brought within one lawsuit under the Entire Controversy Doctrine. If you believe you are terminated or discriminated against by your employer, for more than one illegal discriminatory reason, you may have more than one valid discrimination claim; you do not have to choose when filing the lawsuit.Read more . . .
Monday, May 1, 2017
Clients have asked me if it possible to have a case of age discrimination, when the person who fired them is older than they are. The answer is, “Yes.” For example, an employee in her 50's may be harassed or terminated because of her age, but the boss who made the termination decision is in his 60's. The persons having the managerial authority as to who to keep and who to let go in termination decisions are frequently older themselves and long-term employees. Just because a person is older, even significantly older by a decade or more, than the terminated employee, it does not constitute an outstanding safeguard employer defense when an employer has to defend on a wrongful termination age discrimination claim. Read more . . .
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Businesses attempting to maximize their profits by matching employees of Certain races to the racial demographics of their customers will be breaking both New Jersey and Federal Law. If a customer base is predominately white, the employer may not utilize such racial demographics to hire, train, promote, or retain white workers over non-white workers. By way of example: a commercial business corporation may not assign black employees to work only in the stores that are in black neighborhoods but not predominately white neighborhoods. In assigning accounts to salespersons, a business may not withhold assigning accounts of white-owned businesses or white customers, to African American or other non-white salespersons. This is true even if the customer has blatantly told the business that they do not want a black salesperson. Read more . . .
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
While there is no law in New Jersey that specifically prohibits an employer from asking an employee when he/she can retire, this type of questioning could be an indication of the employer’s age bias when coupled with other biased nuances, words or actions. I have represented both private and public employees in age discrimination lawsuits where the plaintiffs were specifically asked that exact question, “How many years until you can retire?” before they were terminated and I was successful in obtaining six figure settlements for these Plaintiffs. This kind of questioning in some instances can be part of a larger pattern of age harassment and age bias against an employee, as is alleged in a recent case brought by numerous school teachers in Atlanta in a federal class action lawsuit as reported by FOX news http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/240631536-story In this federal class action Atlanta school teachers’ case, what the Plaintiffs’ counsel is presenting as part of the theory of discriminatory evidence, is remarkably similar to facts that were alleged by the plaintiffs in age discrimination cases in which I have successfully represented the employees. Read more . . .
Monday, April 10, 2017
A recent Federal case in Florida underscores the importance of an employer doing a thorough investigation. In Axel v. Fields Motorcars of Florida, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-893-17JSS (M. Read more . . .
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Terminated employees often have come to me when their boss terminated them without giving them any reason as to what they did wrong. When this happens, a detailed inquiry is necessary, going back even several years, to determine if the firing was legal or illegal.
Generally, when a person has a written employment contract, it may stipulate that the employee can only be fired if they did some Certain act or acts ( such as repeated tardiness, etc.) and if the employee does engage in such act, the employer may terminate the employee “ for cause”. But if the employee does not engage in the acts or otherwise violate the contract provisions that trigger the “for cause” termination, the employee’s job is generally secure, absent some illegal act by employee or other bone fide business justification. Read more . . .
|
|
|
|