Disability Discrimination

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.

Yes, there are binding precedents in the US Supreme Court as to certain employment law decisions that states must follow. Both federal courts and all state courts are obligated to follow Supreme Court precedents because Supreme Court precedents are binding precedents on all state and federal courts. This is true for employment discrimination cases and other types of employees’ rights cases. The US Supreme Court in recent years with few exceptions has issued rulings exhibiting little encouragement for workers’ rights.

By way of example, in 2020, employee rights’ advocates were alarmed when the US Supreme Court ruled that Catholic school teachers cannot sue for disability or age employment discrimination under federal laws.

If you are an employee who has a form of heart disease, or experienced some sort of heart episode in or out of the workplace, there may be unsubstantiated assumptions by your employer that you no longer can perform the essential responsibilities of your job with or without an accommodation. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, certain types of disabilities evoke stereotypical fears that perpetuate discrimination against its victims in all aspects of life, including employment. A review of the history of some of these disabilities provides a salient example that fear, rather than the handicap itself, is the major impetus for discrimination against persons with the disability.

Heart disease presents in many forms and employers will sometimes view a person returning from a leave due to a myocardial infarction or other heart condition as no longer having the ability to perform the essential functions of his or job. An executive employee could be a rising star on the upward mobility track until the employer learns the executive was born with congenital heart disease and then the accelerations in promotions abruptly halts.

It will not be news to many female employees with cancer, that employers treat female employees with cancer disparately from men with cancer. This is a synergy of both disability discrimination and sex discrimination. Women without disabilities are often held to a higher standard in employee performance evaluations than are men. This is particularly true when a woman is in an occupation that is traditionally dominated by men, where she may be seen as an “imposter” simply because of her sex.

When a woman also has a disability such as cancer, she is often held to an even higher standard for promotions, or even retention,  than a male employee who has cancer.

Despite attempts by world health organizations to eradicate many of the fears surrounding epilepsy, employees living with epilepsy may experience illegal employment discrimination in both the public and private sectors. Centuries old superstitions, fears and fallacies about being in the presence of persons who have seizure disorders have their historical roots associating seizure disorders with danger, sorcery, unpredictable supernatural powers and witchcraft. While modern science has certainly debunked the formerly widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation of seizures, some persons in the 21^st century nevertheless emotionally and physically distance themselves from others who are known to have epilepsy.

Unfounded fears by co-workers that they in some way may be harmed by a person having a seizure, may contribute to illegal and discriminatory actions of the employer.

This was such the issue heard by the NJ Supreme Court in a 1988 case brought by an employee against his former employer, a supermarket, who terminated him because they thought his epilepsy posed a danger to other workers if he had a seizure while in the workplace.

The federal minimum wage is a law set by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) which mandates to employers in all states the lowest hourly wage they can pay their employees. The federal minimum wage was last raised in 2009, setting it at $7.25 an hour. It is distressing that current federal minimum wage has not changed in thirteen years and remains $7.25 an hour.

New Jersey’s top law enforcer announced in a press release in August that an employer, Academy Bus Lines, must pay a former driver $40,000.00 for firing him because he took a leave to care for his dying father. According to the investigation, the Hoboken-based company fired the bus driver after he began intermittent leave under the New Jersey Family Leave Act. (FLA).

The FLA is an Act to provide employees with newly-born or adopted children or seriously ill family members temporary leave from their employment, and guaranteeing job security and certain benefits during this leave.

In New Jersey, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against you because he perceives you to be disabled, irrespective of whether you actually are disabled or not. If this happens, you may have a valid claim for illegal employment discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination even if you are not disabled.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is broad enough to prohibit discrimination because of perceived handicaps even if you are not in fact handicapped. If your employer thinks you are handicapped or disabled, it may be a valid claim in some situations even if you are not disabled.

Many subsequent cases of perceived disability discrimination cite back to a 1982 NJ Supreme Court case, Andersen v.

New Jersey employers may require employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in order to enter the physical workplace according to policy issued on NJ State Government website. The EEOC issued a press release last week with a similar stance, that Federal laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

An exception to a mandatory vaccine policy may be when an employee has been advised by their medical doctor not to get the COVID-19 vaccine while pregnant or breastfeeding. Other possible exceptions are when an employee has a disability that prevents them from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, or has a sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance that precludes them from getting vaccinated, i.e.

If your employer under the New Jersey Earned Sick Leave Law refuses to give you permission to take time to care for yourself or a family member who has become unwell due to the Covid-19 virus or who won’t pay you for that time as mandated by the law, you should contact this office. Some employers are attempting to skirt his law, violating this law, as the pandemic is now in the midst of its second year impacting employees and their families. If your employer retaliates against you for your asking for such time off, you may also have a retaliation claim against your employer.

Under this statute, an employee is permitted to use accrued earned sick leave as it relates to the  Covid-19 pandemic for any of the following reasons:

(1) time needed for diagnosis, care, or treatment of, or recovery from, an employee’s mental or physical illness, injury or other adverse health condition, or for preventive medical care for the employee;

(2) time needed for the employee to aid or care for a family member of the employee during diagnosis, care, or treatment of, or recovery from, the family member’s mental or physical illness, injury or other adverse health condition, or during preventive medical care for the family member;

(3) time during which the employee is not able to work because of a closure of the employee’s workplace, or the school or place of care of a child of the employee, by order of a public official due to an epidemic or other public health emergency, or because of the issuance by a public health authority of a determination that the presence in the community of the employee, or a member of the employee’s family in need of care by the employee, would jeopardize the health of others.

The definition of “family member” in this statute is broad.