Employment

New Jersey has several laws that prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee who testifies against the employer in a lawsuit brought by another employee. This is good news including for New Jersey state employees who might otherwise have to rely upon First Amendment protections with mixed results. 

The most common law for protecting workers from retaliation by the employer if they testify against that employer in a lawsuit brought by a co-employee is New Jersey’s general whistleblower law,  the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) N.

Employees who are in the position of working for a supervisor who is younger than them and/or being the oldest workers in their department may find themselves being the brunt of ageist jokes. Calling employees, “grandpa,” and “old bastards ”and “like a bag of bones” are among some of the humor or name calling that was alleged in successful employment age discrimination cases. Employees who are among the oldest in their department may find themselves excluded not only from social gatherings with co-employees,  but also from employer sponsored quasi-social meetings and training sessions. While the former is not necessarily indicative of age bias on the part of the employer, the latter may have real consequences for the older employee who not only wants to be retained, but also wants to be promoted, and it could be an indicator of illegal age bias. 

One such case with alleged facts typical of age discrimination plaintiffs was settled August 3, 2016 with the judge dismissing the case August 4, 2016 while preserving the right of either party to reinstate the action within 60 days if the settlement was not consummated.

There has been conflicting interpretations and opinions for decades on whether the Civil Right Act's Title VII prohibition on employment sex discrimination encompasses employment discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Unlike the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the Federal Civil Right Act's Title VII does not specifically include within the statute’s language, the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Plaintiffs who lived in more conservative states that did not have strong state discrimination statutes protecting employees from LGBT discrimination in the workplace, were left with having to litigate LGBT discrimination claims under Title VII, with mixed results.

Some African Americans still undergo a disturbing amount of blatant racism on the job, including having a supervisor call the employee the “N-Word” on job. As shocking as these facts are, incidents of blatant racism, such as the “N-Word” or even the extreme symbolism of a noose left laying around in the place of employment, are far more common than generally realized.

One such case, where the employee alleged that he was subjected to the “N-Word” on job,  was filed under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, “NJLAD”, in State Superior Court, with the author of this blog as the Plaintiff’s counsel, and the case settled for six figures.

Imagine coming to work each day for a supervisor who referred to you as the “N-Word”. Could anything be more demeaning or infuriating? The author of this blog currently represents a public state employee in a lawsuit filed in Superior Court, brought under the NJLAD, where the employee alleges he was subjected to being called the “N-word” repeatedly on a daily basis by his supervisor.

Employment applications sometimes have clauses stating that any dispute between the employer and employee arising out of the employment relationship can only be resolved by a means of alternative dispute resolution, such as binding arbitration, thereby preventing the employee from filing a discrimination lawsuit in State or Federal Court. Many legal minds, including Hope A. Lang, the author of this blog, think that such “ arbitration clauses” in employment applications are contracts of adhesion, and they should not be enforced, i.e., that a Plaintiff should be allowed to file a lawsuit in court rather than have the matter be resolved in binding arbitration.

Family Responsibilities Discrimination, which is not yet a state or federal identified law, sometimes  known as “ caregiver discrimination”, is discrimination against employees based on their family-caregiving responsibilities. It involves discrimination against parents of young children, pregnant women, and employees with sick or aging partners or parents. Evidence of such discrimination may consist of: being rejected for hire, harassed, demoted, denied deserved promotion, or wrongfully terminated.