New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

Last week, in Walker v. Guiffre and Humphries v. Powder Mill Shopping Plaza, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the longstanding rule that a plaintiff can receive an enhanced attorney fee award under New Jersey laws that allow a prevailing plaintiff to recover his attorneys' fees from the defendant. This applies to many New Jersey employment laws, including the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), and the New Jersey Family Leave Act (FLA).

This right to a contingency fee enhancement dates back to Rendine v. Pantzer, a 1995 New Jersey Supreme Court case which discusses an employee's right to recover his reasonable attorney's fees if he wins a case under the LAD. After the court calculates the attorneys' reasonable fee, it must determine whether and how much of an enhancement he should receive. The fee enhancement is intended to make up for the risk a lawyer takes when taking a case on a contingency fee basis. Contingency fee enhancements generally should range between five and fifty percent, and typically range between twenty and thirty-five percent. The maximum possible fee enhancement under New Jersey law is 100 percent, but such a high enhancement is available only in a "rare and exceptional case."

In contrast, in April 2010, in Perdue v. Kenny A., the United States Supreme Court recognized that, under federal law, an attorney fee enhancement is permitted only in "rare" and "exceptional" circumstances. Fortunately, in Walker and Humphries the New Jersey Supreme Court decided not to follow Perdue, and instead continued to follow Rendine. As a result, employees who bring claims under New Jersey fee-shifting statutes such as the LAD, CEPA and the FLA are entitled to seek enhanced attorney fees. However, employees bringing claims under federal employment laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), are rarely entitled to fee enhancements.

Continue reading "New Jersey Supreme Court Reaffirms Lower Threshhold for Attorneys' Fees Enhancements" »

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently ruled, in an employment law case in which the same law firm represented two clients, and only one of those clients won at trial, it was improper to reduce the attorney's fee award by 50%. Many employment laws, including New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), allow an employee who wins his case to recover his reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Ordinarily, when an attorney achieves excellent results for his client, he should be awarded all of his attorney's fees. Otherwise, the judge can reduce the fee based on the time that he finds was unnecessary or unreasonable.

The case, Donelson v. DuPont, involved two employees. Joseph Donelson brought a whistleblower claim under CEPA and an age discrimination claim under the LAD. However, he lost his case at trial. The other employee, John Seddon, brought a whistleblower claim under CEPA. Seddon won at trial, and the jury awarded him $724,000 in economic damages, plus $500,000 in punitive damages. As I discussed in June, in an earlier decision stemming from Donelson, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey Employees Can Recover Lost Wages if Forced to Resign Because Retaliation Caused Psychiatric Disorder. But the Court sent the case back to the Appellate Division to decide whether the trial court had properly reduced Seddon's attorney's fees.

Since Seddon and Donelson were represented by the same lawyer, and their cases were factually related, it was difficult to determine how much of the total time the lawyers spent on the case was necessary to Seddon's case, and how much was only necessary for Donelson's case. As a result, the trial judge decided to cut Seddon's attorney's fee award in half.

The Appellate Division ruled that, when the trial judge calculated Seddon's attorney's fees, it was proper to consider the fact that Donelson lost his LAD case. However, it found it was improper to reduce Seddon's attorney's fee by 50 percent because Donelson would have been a witness in Seddon's case even if he was not a party to the lawsuit, and his attorney would have had to spend much of the same time either way. Accordingly, the Appellate Division sent the case back to the trial court to reassess the appropriate attorney's fee.

Continue reading "New Jersey Appellate Court Rejects 50% Reduction to Attorney's Fees Award in Whistleblower Lawsuit" »

Last week, I discussed the case of Thomas Bowers, an IT Professional who won his appeal of his race discrimination case against the New Jersey Judiciary. That case, Bowers v. New Jersey Judiciary, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth Vicinage, also discusses Mr. Bowers' retaliation claim.

Mr. Bowers filed an internal Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaint with his employer, the New Jersey Judiciary. He claimed his new supervisor, Troy Fitzpactrick, was harassing him because of his race. For example, he indicated that Mr. Fitzpatrick gave him assignments with unrealistic deadlines.

According to Mr. Bowers, the day after Mr. Bowers was interviewed about his EEO complaint, Mr. Fitzpatrick called him into his office and asked him about his complaint and work assignments. That meeting eventually became heated, and Mr. Fitzpatrick made threatening statements. Three days later, Mr. Bowers filed a second EEO complaint about Mr. Fitzpatrick's behavior during that meeting.

Mr. Bowers then went on a medical leave due to anxiety and stress caused by the harassment and discrimination he had been experiencing at work. During the first month of Mr. Bowers' medical leave, several Judiciary employees and a sheriff's officer came to Mr. Bowers' home to take back his laptop, supposedly because they were investigating a security breach. However, there is evidence that the Judiciary had little or no reason to suspect that Mr. Bowers was involved in that security breach.

Approximately three months later, the Judiciary terminated Mr. Bowers' employment, claiming he "abandoned" his job. However, at that point Mr. Bowers still had not been cleared to return from his medical leave.

The trial court dismissed Mr. Bowers' retaliation claim, concluding that the lower-level job duties he was assigned were part of his job description, his argument with Fitzpatrick and the confiscation of his laptop were not legally actionable, and his termination was not retaliatory. But New Jersey's Appellate Division found these conclusions were reasonable, but that it was possible that a jury would instead find that some or all of the Judiciary's actions toward Mr. Bowers were retaliatory. It therefore sent Mr. Bowers' case back to the trial court, to give him an opportunity to try to prove his retaliation claim.

The Appellate Division's decision also addressed Mr. Bowers' claim that the Judiciary failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability, Anxiety Disorder. I will discuss that aspect of his case in my next article.

Continue reading "New Jersey Judiciary Faces Retaliation Lawsuit" »

Under the "cat's paw" theory, a company can be held liable for discrimination based on the discriminatory intent of an employee who influenced an employment decision, even if the person who actually made the decision did not discriminate. Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Court Circuit applied the cat's paw theory and ruled a decision to fire an employee was retaliatory even though it was made by a disciplinary review board that did not intend to retaliate against the employee since the review process began as a result of retaliation. The Third Circuit is the federal appellate court that handles appeals from New Jersey. As I discussed in previous articles, earlier this year the United States Supreme Court adopted the "cat's paw" theory in federal cases, and the New Jersey Appellate Division adopted the cat's paw theory in November 2008.

In Moore v. City of Philadelphia, three police officers sued the Philadelphia Police Department for retaliating against them because they objected to the fact that the Department was discriminating against African-American police officers. One of those Officers, Raymond Carnation, claimed he was assigned to work alone in dangerous neighborhoods in the rain and cold in retaliation for his objections to the race discrimination, and that Police Captain William Colarulo threatened to make his life "a living nightmare" if he filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Eventually, the Department brought disciplinary charges of insubordination against Officer Carnation, supposedly based on verbal altercation with Captain Colarulo. The disciplinary charges were referred to the Police Board of Inquiry ("PBI"), a board that investigates disciplinary charges against members of the Police Department and recommends the appropriate discipline.

The PBI found Officer Carnation guilty of the charges against him, and recommended that the City should fire him. The Police Commissioner agreed with that recommendation, and the City fired Officer Carnation.

After a trial in the civil lawsuit, a jury found in favor of all three of the police officers, including Officer Carnation, concluding the City had retaliated against them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the jury found that Officer Carnation's objections to race discrimination was a factor that motivated the Department's decision to fire him.

One of the primary issues on the appeal to the Third Circuit was whether the City could be held liable for retaliating against Officer Carnation even though the decision to fire him was made by the PBI and the Police Commissioner, neither of which had any intention of retaliating against him. The Court explained that an employer can be held liable for retaliation if there is a direct and substantial relation between the retaliatory action and the harm it caused the employee, as long as the link is not "too remote or indirect." Based on the facts, it concluded that it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Captain Colarulo's retaliatory intent had a direct and substantial relation to Officer Carnation being fired, since his actions led to the PBI's investigation. As a result, it upheld the jury's verdict in favor of Officer Carnation.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Rules Employer Can Be Liable if Supervisor's Discrimination Influenced Disciplinary Hearing" »

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an employee can pursue a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on being fired because his fiancée objected to discrimination by the same employer. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on gender, race, color, and national origin. It also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who object to discrimination that violates Title VII.

Eric Thompson and his fiancée, Miriam Regalado, both worked for North American Stainless, LP (NAS). Ms. Reglado filed a claim of sex discrimination against NAS with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). NAS fired Mr. Thompson three weeks after it learned that Ms. Reglado had filed her discrimination claim. Mr. Thompson eventually sued NAS, alleging it retaliated against him by firing him because his fiancée had filed a discrimination claim against it.

The District Court dismissed Mr. Thompson's case, ruling that Title VII does not permit third party retaliation claims. That decision was affirmed on appeal. But in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, the United States Supreme Court disagreed, and instead ruled that Mr. Thompson has a valid retaliation claim under Title VII because "a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired."

The Supreme Court decided not to set a bright line rule on what type of personal relationship is enough to claim that a company retaliated against am employee based on someone else's legally protected activity. It noted that a close family member will almost always meet the standard, but left open whether retaliation against an employee's girlfriend, boyfriend, close friend, or trusted co-worker would be protected.

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Thompson is similar to the New Jersey Supreme Court's 1995 ruling in Craig v. Suburban Cablevision. Craig holds that the anti-retaliation provision of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee's close friends and relatives who work for the same company, since otherwise employers could discourage employees from complaining about discrimination by threatening, intimidating, or otherwise harming their friends or family.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Finds Retaliation Against Employee's Fiancee Violates Federal Anti-Discrimination Law" »

Earlier today, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that employees who are forced to resign as a result of retaliation by their employers in violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) may be able to recover lost past and future wages even if they were not fired or constructively discharged. CEPA is New Jersey's whistleblower law. Among other things, it prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who object to or refuse to participate in activities they reasonably believe are illegal, fraudulent, or violate a clear mandate of public policy regarding public health, safety, welfare, or the environment.

John Seddon, an employee who worked as an operator technician for DuPont, reported numerous workplace safety concerns, and eventually filed a complaint with the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). DuPont retaliated against him in numerous ways, including verbal abuse, negative performance reviews, putting him on probation, forcing him to take a disability leave, suspending him for 53 days, making false accusations about him, and requiring him to work 12-hour shifts in isolation. The harassment eventually caused Mr. Seddon to suffer a mental breakdown. Unable to work for DuPont any longer, he took a 6-month disability leave of absence, and then began receiving a disability pension.

After a trial, a jury awarded Mr. Seddon $724,000 in economic damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The trial court also awarded him $523,289 in attorney's fees, for a total of nearly $1.75 million. However, the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the verdict, ruling that Mr. Seddon could not recover lost wages under CEPA because he was neither fired nor constructively discharged. A constructive discharge is when an employee is forced to quit because his work environment is so intolerable that any reasonable person in his situation would feel compelled to resign.

But, the New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed that an actual firing or constructive discharge is required for an employee to recover lost wages under CEPA. Rather, the Court ruled that an employee can recover lost wages if his employer's illegal retaliation caused him to be unable to work. As a result, in Donelson v. DuPont Chambers Works, it restored Mr. Seddon's judgment.

Continue reading "New Jersey Employees Can Recover Lost Wages if Forced to Resign Because Retaliation Caused Psychiatric Disorder" »

Earlier this year, in an unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a trial judge should not have dismissed a lawsuit claiming that his employer fired him in retaliation for speaking about a matter of public concern, in violation of First Amendment. The Third Circuit is a federal court that handles appeals from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The case, Beyer v. Duncannon Borough, involves Police Officer Eric Beyer's claim that his employer, the Duncannon Borough, fired him in retaliation for expressing his opinion that the Borough should purchase higher velocity weapons for its police officers. Beyer posted comments on the internet and appeared on the Fox local news to express his opinion about purchasing the weapons. Mr. Beyer's claims that Borough officials "openly attacked" him in response to his opinion, called his internet postings inappropriate, and eventually fired him.

Beyer sued, claiming the decision to fire him was retaliation in violation of his right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial court dismissed his case, finding the facts did not support the conclusion that the Borough retaliated against him.

The Third Circuit disagreed, and reinstated Mr. Beyer's case. First, it explained that a public employee's speech is protected by the First Amendment if (1) he spoke as a citizen, rather than in his capacity as an employee, about a matter of public concern, and (2) the government did not have an adequate reason for treating him differently. On the first requirement, it found Mr. Beyer could have been speaking in his capacity as a citizen because he made his internet postings and gave his television interview during his off-duty hours, and used a pseudonym for his internet postings rather than making them as part of his job duties as a police officer. With respect to the second requirement, the court found Mr. Beyer's opinion that the Police Department should have higher velocity weapons could relate to a matter of public concern because it had to do with the safety of the Police Force, which in turn relates to public safety. The Court also considered the fact that Mr. Beyer communicated his opinion publically, using the internet and TV news.

The Third Circuit then concluded that Mr. Beyer's alleged facts supported the conclusion that his employer fired him in retaliation for his speech on an issue of public concern. It noted that employee can prove retaliation based on either (1) very close timing between the employee's legally protected activity and the employer's act of retaliation, or (2) a pattern of antagonism between the employee's protected activity and the employer's act of retaliation. It found that, based on Mr. Beyer's allegations, it was plausible that the Borough had retaliated against him. It therefore ruled that he should have an opportunity to try to prove his claim, and reversed the trial court's decision dismissing his case.

Continue reading "Court Rules Public Employee's Internet Postings Can Be Protected by the First Amendment" »

On April 14, 2011, New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled that filing an employment discrimination lawsuit can be a protected "whistleblower" activity under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). Among other things, CEPA prohibits New Jersey employers from retaliating against an employee because he discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or a public body, an activity, policy or practice that he reasonably believes violates the law.

The case, Hester v. Parker, involves Terry Hester, the former Director of Facilities/Operations for the Winslow Township Board of Education (Board). Mr. Hester, who is Caucasian, complained to the Board's Director of Human Resources that Patricia Parker, an African-American Board member, made racist and discriminatory comments about job candidates.

After the Board failed to address his internal discrimination complaint, Mr. Hester filed a lawsuit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). However, the trial court dismissed his lawsuit.

But, in an unpublished decision the Appellate Division reversed. It ruled that both Mr. Hestor's internal complaint and lawsuit alleging reverse discrimination could be considered protected "whistleblowing" under CEPA. The Court also concluded that a jury could find the Board's decision to fire Mr. Hestor was retaliatory based on the fact that it gave him a negative performance evaluation only ten days after he filed his lawsuit, and the Superintendent recommended firing him only nine days after the Board received a copy of his lawsuit.

However, the Appellate Division made it clear that not every civil lawsuit or internal complaint to an employer is covered by CEPA. Rather, it ruled that a lawsuit is protected by CEPA only if (1) the employee complained about a violation of a mandatory legal standard like discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preference, and (2) the employee made an internal complaint before filing the lawsuit, but the employer failed to address it.

Continue reading "Filing Lawsuit Can Be Protected Under New Jersey's Whistleblower Law" »

On March 22, 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who make oral complaints about violations of the FLSA. The FLSA is a federal law that sets minimum wages, maximum hours, and overtime pay requirements. It includes an antiretaliation provision which forbids employers from firing or otherwise discriminating against employees because they "filed any complaint" under the FLSA.

The case, Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., involves Kevin Kasten's lawsuit against his former employer, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation. Mr. Kasten claimed Saint-Gobain fired him in retaliation for his verbal objections to the company's violation of the FLSA. Specifically, he repeatedly told his supervisor, several human resources representatives, and other Saint-Gobain officials that the company was violating the law by locating its time clocks in a place where employees could not get credit for the time they spent putting on and taking off their protective gear. In a separate lawsuit, Mr. Kasten proved that Saint-Gobain violated the FLSA because it was required to pay its employees for the time they spent "donning and doffing" their protective gear.

The Supreme Court found that Mr. Kasten is entitled to try to prove his retaliation case because "filing any complaint" under the FLSA can include making a verbal complaint to your employer. The Court noted that the word "filed" has different meanings in different contexts. Sometimes it implies something in writing, but in other contexts it can include verbal statements. It then considered that when Congress passed the FLSA, it recognized enforcement of the law was likely to depend on "information and complaints received from employees seeking to vindicate rights claimed to have been denied," and that the antiretaliation provision was intended to encourage employee to come forward by preventing employers from silencing them through "fear of economic retaliation." Accordingly, the Court concluded that Congress did not intend to limit the FLSA's antiretaliation protection to written complaints, since that would make it more difficult for illiterate, less educated, and overworked workers to complain. It also explained that limiting complaints to written complaints would prevent Government agencies from using hotlines, interviews, and other verbal complaint methods, and would discourage employees from using informal workplace grievance procedures.

However, the Supreme Court also recognized that it would not be fair to employers if the FLSA's antiretaliation provision applied when the employer did not have fair notice that the employee made a complaint that could subject the company to a retaliation claim. It therefore ruled that an oral complaint must have enough formality that the employer either understood or reasonably should have understood that the complaint was a business concern. In other words, a complaint is "filed" when a reasonable person would have understood that the employee put the employer on notice that he was asserting a right under the FLSA.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Rules FLSA Forbids Retaliation Against Employees Who Make Oral Complaints" »

On February 28, 2011, New Jersey's Appellate Division issued an unpublished opinion ruling that a jury should decide whether the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("DOC") retaliated against one of its employees, Bienvenido Montalvo.

Mr. Montalvo Filed a National Origin Discrimination Complaint With the EEOC

Mr. Montalvo worked for DOC as a senior corrections officer at Northern State Prison ("NSP"). On October 5, 2004,he filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in Newark, New Jersey. He claimed several superior officers harassed and retaliated against him because of his national origin, Hispanic/Puerto Rican. The EEOC sent Mr. Montalvo's Charge of Discrimination to DOC in Trenton on October 7. It is unclear exactly when NSP received a copy of Mr. Montalvo's Notice of Charge of Discrimination, but the evidence seems to indicate that DOC received it sometime in October 2004.DOC Unfairly Disciplined Mr. Montalvo After He Complained About Discrimination

On November 4, 2004, Mr. Montalvo received a notice of disciplinary action charging him with conduct unbecoming and other sufficient causes for allegedly assaulting a prisoner on October 28. DOC suspended him without pay pending a hearing, and told him he was subject to potentially being fired. However, after a hearing in December 2004, the charges against Mr. Montalvo were dismissed because DOC failed to present any evidence to support them. Mr. Montalvo was then reinstated to his job with full back pay.

The Trial Court Dismissed Mr. Montalvo's Retaliation Claim

Mr. Montalvo sued DOC and six of its employees alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"), among other claims. However, the trial court dismissed his retaliation claim, finding he did not have enough evidence to support it.

The Appellate Division Reinstated Mr. Montalvo's Retaliation Claim

The Appellate Division disagreed, and instead ruled that Mr. Montalvo is entitled to a trial. It concluded that he suffered an "adverse employment action" because a reasonable employee might not file a discrimination claim if he knew his employer would respond by falsely accusing him of committing an assault, suspending him without pay, and forcing him to defend himself at a disciplinary hearing. It further found it is possible for a jury to find from the evidence that DOC knew about Mr. Montalvo's EEOC complaint when it disciplined him. The Court concluded that a reasonable jury could believe the discipline was retaliatory, based on evidence including the fact that (1) DOC suspended him less than a month after he filed his Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC; (2) the officers who brought the disciplinary charges against him told him he had a target on his back and they wanted to fire him in October 2004; and (3) DOC sought to discipline him despite a videotape and several reports from the day of the alleged assault which confirmed he had done nothing wrong. Accordingly, the Appellate Division sent Mr. Montalvo's case back to the trial court for a jury trial.

Continue reading "New Jersey Appellate Division Reinstates Retaliation Claim Against Department of Corrections" »

Yesterday, the United Supreme Court decided an important employment law case. Specifically, in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the Supreme Court ruled that companies can be held liable for an adverse employment decision, even if the employee who actually made the decision did not discriminate, when another supervisor's discriminatory actions or beliefs influenced the decision. As the Supreme Court explained, cases in which a supervisor uses a discriminatory factor to influence someone else to discipline or fire an employee are commonly referred to as "cat's paw" cases. Staub is similar to Kwiatkowski v. Merrill Lynch, an April 2008 decision in which the New Jersey Appellate Division adopted the cat's paw theory under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD").

Staub involves an employee, Vincent Staub, who worked for Proctor Hospital as an angiography technician. Proctor fired Mr. Staub, who was a member of the United States Army Reserve, in April 2004. Mr. Staub brought a wrongful termination lawsuit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), a federal law that prohibits discrimination against members of the United States Armed Forces. After a trial, a jury found in Mr. Staub's favor, concluding that his military status was a factor in Proctor's decision to fire him. The jury awarded Mr. Staub $57,640 in damages.

Mr. Staub did not claim that the employee who made the decision to fire him, Proctor's Vice President of Human Resources, Linda Buck, had any animosity toward him because he was a member of the Army Reserves. Rather, he claimed his immediate supervisor, Janice Mulally, and Ms. Mullally's supervisor, Michael Korenchuck, were hostile toward him because of his military obligations, and influenced Ms. Buck's decision to fire him. Specifically, Mr. Staub claims that when Ms. Buck decided to fire him, she relied on a discriminatory "Corrective Action" disciplinary warning that Ms. Mulally and Mr. Korenchuk placed in his personnel record in an attempt to get him fired. The Supreme Court ruled that these facts were enough for a jury to hold Proctor liable for discriminating against Mr. Staub in violation of USERRA.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Adopts "Cat's Paw" Discrimination Theory" »

On December 13, 2010, New York State Governor David A. Paterson signed the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA") into law. The WTPA is intended to help protect employees working in New York against violations of their wage and hour law rights.

The WTPA requires employers to provide information to employees about how they are being paid. For example, employers must notify employees, in writing, of:

1. Their rate and basis for their pay, such as whether they are paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or otherwise;
2. Any allowances the employer claims as part of the employee's minimum wage, such as tip, meal, or lodging allowances; and
3. Their overtime rate, number of regular hours worked, and number of overtime hours worked for employees who are not exempt from overtime.

Employers must provide this information to employees when they are hired, and no later than February of each year thereafter. The information must be in English and the employee's primary language other than English when applicable. Employers also are required to have employees sign and date an acknowledgment confirming they received this information each time they provide it to them.

In addition, the WTPA requires New York State employers to (1) notify employees in writing about changes to their rate and basis of pay, allowances for overtime, or overtime rate; (2) provide that information with each paycheck or other payment of wages; and (3) keep contemporaneous, true, and accurate payroll records containing all of that information for at least 6 years. It also expands the antiretaliation provisions of New York's wage and hour laws. For example, employers cannot retaliate against employees who object in good faith about activities that they reasonably believe violate the WPTA.

In a press release about the WTPA, Governor Paterson said he is "proud to sign this legislation, which will combat misconduct by unscrupulous employers who fail to pay statutorily-mandated minimum wages and overtime." Similarly, the policy co-director for the National Employment Law Project, Annette Bernhardt, recognized that:

By enacting this critical legislation, New York joins a growing number of states nationwide . . . that are ramping up the fight against wage theft. By stiffening the penalties, protecting workers who come forward, and ensuring that unpaid wages are collected, the new law provides the tools we need to ensure justice for the hundreds of thousands of workers in New York who are impacted each year.

The WTPA will go into effect on April 12, 2011.

Continue reading "New York Passes Wage Theft Protection Act" »

As an employment lawyer, I am often asked whether an employee can take copies of documents from their job to help prove discrimination or retaliation. There is no simple answer to that question. Rather, as the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized last week in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, the answer involves balancing the employee's right to be free from discrimination and the employer's obligation to protect confidential information.

In Quinlan, the New Jersey Supreme Court established 7 factors courts must consider when deciding whether an employee can sue for retaliation if he is fired for giving copies of confidential company documents to his employment lawyer. Those factors are:

1. How did the employee get the document? Documents obtained in the ordinary course of an employee's job are more likely to be protected than documents obtained by rummaging through files or snooping in someone else's office.

2. What did the employee do with the document? Documents used to evaluate or prove discrimination are more likely to be protected.

3. What is the content of the document? Documents that are privileged or reveal a trade secret or other confidential information are less likely to be protected.

4. Did the employee violate a clear company privacy or confidentiality policy, and does the company consistently enforce those policies?

5. How important is the document is to the employee's discrimination case, compared to how disruptive the disclosure of the document is to the company's business?

6. Why did the employee copy the document, rather than just ask the company for a copy of it during the lawsuit? For example, how likely is it that the company would have lost or destroyed the document if the employee had not kept a copy?

7. What will be the impact of the decision on (1) the Law Against Discrimination's goal to eliminate employment discrimination, and (2) the employer's right to protect confidential information?

On November 10, 2010, New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled that a civil service employee can bring a lawsuit alleging that discipline against him was retaliatory even if he did not appeal a Civil Service Commission decision upholding the discipline. In Racanelli v. County of Passaic, James Racanelli sued the County of Passaic, the Passaic County Sheriff's Department, Passaic County's Sheriff, and various other employees. He alleges they harassed him and otherwise retaliated against him in violation of New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act ("CEPA") because he reported numerous unlawful and inappropriate actions within the Sheriff's Department. For example, he claims they transferred him to work at the county jail even though he was not trained to work there, and fired him in retaliation for his objections.

Mr. Racanelli appealed the County's decision to fire him to the Civil Service Commission ("CSC"). The CSC handles administrative appeals of major discipline brought against permanent civil service employees. In this case, the CSC upheld Passaic County's decision to fire Mr. Racanelli. Mr. Racanelli chose not to appeal that decision to the Appellate Division. Instead, he brought a separate retaliation lawsuit under CEPA. However, the trial court ruled that because Mr. Racanelli did not appeal the CSC's decision upholding the discipline to the Appellate Division, he could not pursue a whistleblower case.

The trial court also found Mr. Racanelli's claims were barred because he did not file a notice of claim under New Jersey's Tort Claims Act. The Tort Claims Act requires that an individual with a personal injury claim against the state, a county, or a municipality must submit a formal notice of claim to the public entity. Failure to file a notice of claim within six months after the injury is generally a bar to bringing a lawsuit against a public entity.

On appeal, New Jersey's Appellate Division disagreed with both of the lower court's rulings. It held that an employee can sue under CEPA even if he did not appeal a Civil Service Commission decision upholding the discipline against him because an employee has "the discretion to pursue his retaliation claim in a judicial forum rather than in the administrative process." This is similar to the decision in Winters v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, which ruled that a municipal employee can prove retaliation even if the Civil Service Commission upheld the discipline against him. But unlike Winters, the decision in Racanelli is published, meaning it is a binding legal precedent.

The Appellate Division also ruled that the notice of claim requirement of the Tort Claims Act does not apply to CEPA cases. New Jersey Courts have long recognized that, since the Tort Claims Act does not apply to intentional claims, it does not apply to cases under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the anti-retaliation provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, and other civil rights claims. The Appellate Division applied the same reasoning to conclude that the notice of claim requirement does not apply to CEPA case.

Continue reading "Civil Service Employee's Failure to Appeal Discipline Does Not Bar Retaliation Case" »

The False Claims Act is a federal whistleblower law. It allows individuals who have information about a company defrauding the federal government to bring lawsuits on behalf of the federal government. Someone who brings a case under the False Claims Act can receive between 15% and 25% of any money the government recovers.

On October 26, 2010, the United States Department of Justice announced that GlaxoSmithKline settled a case under the False Claims Act, and pleaded guilty to criminal allegations that it manufactured and distributed adulterated drugs. As part of the settlement, Glaxo is paying a $150 million criminal fine and a $600 million civil penalty to the government. Cheryl Eckard, the Glaxo employee who brought the False Claims Act case, will receive 16% of the $600 million civil penalty, meaning she is entitled to $96 million.

According to the Department of Justice's press release, the case against Glaxo is part of the federal government's efforts to combat health care fraud. The Justice Department further indicates that the United States has recovered "approximately $4.2 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs," and its "total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 have topped $5.4 billion."

Although the False Claims Act is a federal law, New York, New Jersey, and New York City each have their own False Claims Acts. As a result, employees in New York and New Jersey who are aware of fraud against the government potentially could recover a portion of the money out of which the government has been cheated.

Additional information about the False Claims Act is available on our website.