New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

In Lord v. Board of Review, New Jersey's Appellate Division recently held that an employee who resigned because his employer told him he "had to resign" was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Specifically, Talmage Lord had a job with Crossmark that involved driving to various retail stores in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to arrange merchandize on shelves. When Mr. Lord notified his manager that he was unsure he would be able to report to work on Monday because his car had broken down, his manager told him he had to "resign effective immediately." Mr. Lord had no intention of quitting his job, and had already taken efforts to find another way to travel for work.

When Mr. Lord applied for unemployment compensation benefits from the state of New Jersey, his claim was denied on the ground that he left his employment "voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work." That determination was affirmed by the Appeal Tribunal, which reasoned that Mr. Lord resigned voluntarily because he was the one who initiated the action "which eventually lead[] to the separation." The Board of Review also affirmed the decision denying unemployment benefits to Mr. Lord. In effect, the New Jersey Department of Labor adopted a rule that employees who are told to resign are ineligible for unemployment benefits, even when an employee who was fired under the same circumstance would have been eligible.

Mr. Lord appealed that decision once again, to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The Appellate Division is the highest level of appeal for unemployment benefits disputes. The Appellate Division reversed the decision of the Board of Review and awarded the unemployment compensation benefits to Mr. Lord. The court explained that even though Mr. Lord's manager characterized his termination as a "resignation," it was not any different from termination from employment. In other words, the court made it clear that employers may not prevent employees they wish to fire from collecting unemployment benefits by forcing them to resign.

Continue reading "Employees Forced to Resign May Be Eligible For Unemployment Benefits" »

Q. What are my rights when I am ready to return to work from an FMLA leave?

A. Generally, if you seek to return to work at the end of your Family & Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") leave, your employer must reinstate you to your job, or an equivalent job in terms of duties, compensation, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.

It is important to note that normally an employee loses this protection if he or she takes more than 12 weeks off. However, as discussed in a recent article, under certain limited circumstances the FMLA Can Protect an Employee Who Took a Medical Leave for More Than 12 Weeks.

Q. Does my company always have to return me to my job after my FMLA leave?

A. Although employers usually have to reinstate you to your job or an equivalent one at the end of your FMLA leave, there are several exceptions. First, a company does not have to reinstate you if it had a mass layoff or reduction in force while you were on your FMLA leave, and it can prove it would have laid you off even if you had not taken an FMLA leave.

Second, if you are a "key employee," then your employer might be able to refuse to reinstate you if it can show it will experience a "substantial" and "grievous" economic injury to its business if it did so. The FMLA defines key employees to be employees whose salaries are in the highest 10% of the company's employees within 75 miles of your worksite.

Q. What damages can I recover in a case under the FMLA?

A. An employee who wins a lawsuit under the FMLA can recover his or her lost wages and benefits. In some circumstances, you also can recover double damages (called liquidated damages) equal to your lost wages and benefits. In addition, you can recover your attorney's fees and legal costs.

However, the FMLA does not allow you to recover damages for emotional distress or pain and suffering you have experienced. It also does not permit you to recover punitive damages.

Q. My company is violating my right under the FMLA. What can I do?

It is illegal for your employer to refuse to permit you to take time off that you are entitled to under the FMLA. Likewise, it is usually illegal for a company to fire you instead of letting you return to work after your FMLA leave, or to retaliate against you because you requested or took an FMLA leave.

For more information about the FMLA, please refer to our previous Frequently Asked Questions about FMLA Basics, Types of FMLA Leaves, and Requesting an FMLA Leave.

Continue reading "Frequently Asked Questions About the FMLA Part IV: Reinstatement and Remedies" »

Q. How do I request an FMLA leave?

A. Under the Family & Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), you have to provide your employer at least enough information that it is aware you need time off for a reason that is covered by the FMLA. You also need to indicate when you expect to need the time off, and how much time off you expect you will need.

Your employer can require you to follow a specific procedure after you request an FMLA leave, such as having you or your doctor fill out a particular form.

Q. How much advance notice do I need to give my employer before I start my FMLA leave?

A. When practical, you are required to give your employer at least 30 day notice before you take an FMLA leave. For example, you ordinarily must give your employer at least 30 days' notice if you expect to take time off for childbirth, the placement of a child for adoption or foster care, or for a scheduled medical treatment.

However, sometimes it is impossible or impractical to give 30 days' notice before you need to take an FMLA leave. When that is the case, you only have to give as much notice as is reasonable under the circumstances. For example, if you have an unexpected medical emergency, such as a heart attack or stroke, then you might not be required to give your employer any notice before you begin your FMLA leave. However, you still have to tell your employer that you need time off as soon as it is feasible for you to do so.

Q. Do I need a doctor's note or a medical certification to take an FMLA leave?

A. Only if your employer requests it. Your employer has the right to request a medical certification supporting your request for time off under the FMLA. If your employer makes such a request, then you have to provide the certification within 15 calendar days, unless it is not practical to do so under the circumstances.

Q. Can my employer request a second medical opinion?

A. Yes. If your employer has reason to doubt your doctor's medical certification, it can send you for a second opinion. Your employer has to pay for this second opinion.

Last month, we answered Frequently Asked Questions about FMLA Basics, and How to Request an FMLA Leave. Next week, we will answer Frequently Asked Questions about Reinstatement and Remedies under the FMLA.

Continue reading "Frequently Asked Questions About the FMLA Part III: Requesting an FMLA Leave" »

New Jersey has a very broad whistleblower law, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). CEPA protects employees from retaliation when they object to, disclose, or refuse to participate in an activity they reasonably believe (1) is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation written pursuant to law, (2) is fraudulent or criminal, or (3) is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning public health, safety, or welfare or protection of the environment. Last month, in Hallanan v. Township of Fairfield Board of Education, New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled that CEPA protects an employee of a local school district who objected to an apparent violation of her school district's affirmative action policy since the policy was written to comply with a New Jersey Board of Education regulation.

Lynne C. Hallanan worked for the Township of Fairfield Board of Education as a Supervisor of Curriculum and Instruction. She was also the school district's Affirmative Action Officer. One of her job duties was to prepare an annual Comprehensive Equity Plan (CEP). The CEP documented the school district's compliance with its Affirmative Action Guidelines. The district established those guidelines to comply with a New Jersey Board of Education regulation, N.J.A.C. § 6A:7-1.4(c)(2). That regulation requires school districts to identify and correct all unfair educational and hiring policies to ensure "all persons regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability, or socioeconomic status shall have equal and bias free access to all categories of employment in the public educational system of New Jersey."

In preparing the CEP, Ms. Hallanan became concerned the Fairfield Board of Education had not posted certain job openings before filling the positions, as required under its Affirmative Action Guidelines. She asked the teacher's union and the superintendent for documents showing that certain positions (including the superintendent's position) had been posted before they were filled. She never received any such documents.

Ms. Hallanan then submitted a draft CEP to the superintendent in which she stated that the district was unable to find paperwork proving it had followed all of its affirmative action policies. According to her, the superintendent indicated he was unhappy she included that in her report, and told her to remove it from the final version. Ms. Hallanan testified that the superintendent then warned her that she was "calling a strike on yourself with this." She also said she felt the superintendent started harassing her after she submitted her draft report. Approximately one month later, the superintendent told Ms. Hallanan that her position was going to be eliminated as a cost-saving measure.

The trial court dismissed Ms. Hallanan's case. It found she did not fall within CEPA's protection because she did not reasonably believe her employer violated a law or regulation, but only believed it had violated its own internal Affirmative Action policy. However, the Appellate Division saw it differently. It found Ms. Hallanan had objected to something she reasonably believed violated N.J.A.C. § 6A:7-1.4(c)(2), a Board of Education regulation that seeks to prohibit employment discrimination. It also found evidence that Ms. Hallanan reasonably believed the district had bypassed its own Affirmative Action Guidelines when it hired several employees, including the superintendent. Finally, it concluded that there was enough evidence for a jury to find that the decision to fire Ms. Hallanan was retaliatory. As a result, it reversed the lower court's decision to dismiss Ms. Hallanan's case, paving the way for her to have her day in court.

Continue reading "New Jersey Whistleblower Law Protects Employee Who Objected to Violation of School District's Affirmative Action Policy" »