New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

New Severance Entitlement to New Jersey Employees Subject to Mass Layoffs

April 4, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Beginning on April 11, 2023, an important new employment law will go into effect pursuant to which many employees who lose their jobs in New Jersey will be legally entitled to receive severance pay. Specifically, covered employees will be entitled to at least one week of severance per year they worked for their employer.

This new severance pay requirement does not apply to every employee who loses his or her job. For example, it applies only to individuals who lose their jobs as a result of a mass layoff or a transfer or termination of operations that results in at least 50 employees who report to work at a single facility (including employees who work remotely and report to that facility) losing their jobs within a 30 day period (or, sometimes within a 90 day period). A facility can be a single location, a group of locations that form a single office or industrial park, or separate locations across the street from each other.

In addition, companies that have at least 100 employees must provide covered employees at least 90 days of notice before their layoff becomes effective. There is a penalty when an employer fails to provide an employee that notice, namely that the employees is entitled to an extra four weeks of severance pay.

Overtime Exemptions Only Apply to Salaried Employees

March 1, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that, no matter how much an employee earns per year, the primary exemptions to federal overtime pay requirement do not apply unless the employee is guaranteed to receive at least $455 per week for any week in which he or she performed any work for the employer.

Michael Hewitt worked for Helix Energy Solutions Group as a “toolpusher” on an offshore rig. Helix paid him a flat fee for each day he worked. Mr. Hewitt worked for Helix for four consecutive weeks, typically 12 hours per day for seven days per week, followed by four weeks off. Although Helix did not pay him for the four week periods when he was not working, Mr. Hewitt earned over $200,000 per year. Even though Mr. Hewitt regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, Helix never paid him an overtime premium.

Mr. Hewitt sued Helix under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), a federal law that requires employers to pay covered employees receive overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours per week.

New Jersey’s Whistleblower Law Applies to Employees Working Out of State

February 14, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A decision from New Jersey’s Appellate Division recognizes that New Jersey’s whistleblower law, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), can apply to employees who work in other states.

Stephanie Halliday worked for Bioreference Laboratories, Inc., a company that provides diagnostic testing and related services. Bioreference’s headquarters is in Elmwood Park, New Jersey. However, Ms. Halliday worked for it at a laboratory in Houston, Texas.

Ms. Halliday objected to her supervisors that Bioreference was violating federal safety and health regulations and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”) in Texas. Specifically, she emailed an employee in the company’s Quality Systems (“QS”) Department in New Jersey to report significant deficiencies with the performance of the staff in the Houston laboratory that caused her to lack confidence that patients’ test results would be valid.

Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg Has Moved!

February 3, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

We Have Moved to Bergen County

Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg is pleased to announce the opening of our new modern office in Bergen County, New Jersey. Effective immediately, we have moved to our beautiful new home:

Bergen County Main Office

Court Reinstates Lawsuit Alleging Employer Searched Cellphone to Seek Justification to Fire Employee

January 10, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals allows an employee to proceed with his retaliation claim based on evidence suggesting his employer’s decision to search his cellphone was an excuse to try to find support to fire him in retaliation for asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Family & Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

Joseph Canada is Black and suffers from serious back problems including herniated discs and arthritis. He worked for Samuel Grossi and Sons, Inc. for 10 years. Mr. Canada claims Grossi’s management prevented him from accessing FMLA leave forms, and harassed him when he tried to take time off for his back issues. He eventually obtained the forms on his own, and took FMLA leave.

In March 2019, Grossi had a temporary layoff during which it laid off Mr. Canada for a day. In response, Mr. Canada filed a claim of race and disability discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). In June 2019, Mr. Canada filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Grossi under Title VII, the ADA and the FMLA.

When Are Employers Liable for Harassment Toward Customers?

December 12, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A new ruling from the Appellate Division addresses when an employer can be liable for unlawful harassment by one of its employees toward a customer or patron.

The case was brought by Darien Cooper, who is gay. Mr. Cooper received a massage at Rogo Brothers, Inc., which does business under the name Elements Massage (“Elements”). The masseuse, Justine Middleton, asked Mr. Cooper about a tattoo on his arm. During their ensuing conversation, Ms. Middleton told Mr. Cooper that she is Christian. When Mr. Cooper later referred to his boyfriend, Ms. Middleton made demeaning and discriminatory comments about homosexuality. For example, she told Mr. Cooper that gays “do not follow God’s design,” compared being gay with pedophilia, and implied she believes being gay is a choice. Mr. Cooper found these comments humiliating.

Mr. Cooper sued Elements, alleging it engaged in sexual orientation discrimination against him in a “place of public accommodation,” in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). In addition to prohibiting workplace discrimination, the LAD also prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, such as a “retail shop, store, establishment, or concession dealing with goods or services of any kind.” As a result, places like Elements cannot discriminate against their customers based on their sexual orientation (or, for that matter, based on their race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, sex, gender identity or expression, disability or nationality).

Court Permits Starbucks Reverse Discrimination Claim to Proceed

October 11, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision by the District of New Jersey allows an employee’s reverse race discrimination claim to proceed to a trial.

Shannon Phillips worked for Starbucks Corporation for 13 years, most recently as a Regional Director of Operations. In April 2018, a Caucasian store manager within Ms. Phillips’ district called the police to a Starbucks store where two African American men were in the store, but had not made a purchase. The two men were arrested.

This racial profiling incident received national media attention, and resulted in protests outside the store where it occurred. In response, Starbucks publicly vowed to take actions “to repair and reaffirm our values and vision for the kind of company that we want to be.”

Working Through Independent Business Not Enough to Make Employees into Independent Contractors

August 3, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the “ABC test” used to determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Specifically, it made it clear that just because someone works through their business is not enough to make them an independent contractor.

The case began with a random audit by the New Jersey Department of Labor (“DOL”). The DOL found 16 employees had been misclassified as independent contractors. On appeal, East Bay Drywall (“East Bay”) contested that 11 of them were employees.

The ABC test applies to determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purpose of several specific laws, including New Jersey’s unemployment compensation law, Wage Payment Act, Wage and Hour Law. Under it, a worker is an employee unless the company he or she worked proves all three of the following:

Rutgers Women’s Basketball Players Win Appeal in Discrimination Lawsuit

June 23, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent ruling from New Jersey’s Appellate Division allows members of the Rutger’s women’s basketball team to continue with their lawsuit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

Sharee Gordon, Adayshia McKinnon, Jade Howard, Arianna Williams and Sarah Schwartz were students at Rutgers-Newark University and members of the women’s basketball team. Gordon, Howard and Williams each identify themselves as African-American lesbians; McKinnon identifies as Black and bisexual; and Schwartz identifies as Hispanic and heterosexual.

During the 2014-15 school year, the team’s head coach, Kevin Morris, was on a medical leave. When Gordon learned Rutgers was considering naming William Zasowski as the interim head coach, she raised concerns that he had used discriminatory language to refer to members of the men’s basketball team when he was its assistant coach. Specifically, she alleged he referred to members of the men’s team as “p*ssies,” “b*tches,” and “retard[s]” and asked if they were on their “period.” Rutgers nonetheless selected Zasowski as the interim head coach.

Non-Disparagement Clauses Do Not Violate New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

June 6, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last week, in Savage v. Township of Neptune, the Appellate Division ruled that a 2019 amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) does not prohibit parties from entering into non-disparagement clauses.

The Appellate Division’s opinion involved Christine Savage, a Sergeant for the Township of Neptune Police Department. Sgt. Savage brought an employment discrimination case against Neptune, Police Director Michael J. Bascom, Police Chief James M. Hunt, in which she alleged they engaged in sexual discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the LAD, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”), and the free speech provision of the New Jersey Constitution.

Sgt. Savage eventually settled her case. The settlement agreement included a mutual non-disparagement provision which prevented the parties from making any statements “regarding the past behavior of the parties, which statements would tend to disparage or impugn the reputation of any party.”