New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

Jury Must Decide Whether Employee Was Fired Because of Insubordination or Age

December 3, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent age discrimination case from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a helpful reminder that just because your employer has a good excuse for its decision to fire you, it does not necessarily mean the company did not violate the law.

Carol Natale began working for East Coast Salon Services, Inc., in November 2006. At the time she was 59 years old. A little over five years later, the salon’s owner, Stan Klet, called the store. Ms. Natale answered the telephone by saying “East Coast Salon, how can I help you?” Ms. Klet claimed Ms. Natale violated company policy by failing to give her name when she answered the phone. He also claimed Ms. Natale challenged him when he told her she had violated this policy. In contrast, Ms. Natale says she told Mr. Klet that nobody ever told her to provide her name when she answers the telephone. She also claims she apologized to Mr. Klet during the call and that she did not argue with him.

After checking with its Human Resources Department, the company fired Ms. Natale. It claims it fired her because she was insubordinate, argumentative and disrespectful during the call with Mr. Klet.

New Jersey Prohibits Retaliating Against Employees Who Object to Actions They Reasonably Believe Were Discriminatory

November 25, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent unpublished decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division demonstrates that employees can prove their employers retaliated against them for objecting to discrimination without proving the discrimination actually was unlawful.

Debra Lemeshow worked for PSEG Services Corporation. In 2000, the company made her its Manager, Business Management Support, with a salary of $95,000 and a potential 15 percent annual bonus.

In 2001, PSEG hired a company to compare its compensation packages to similar jobs at other companies. It determined the appropriate salary for Ms. Lemeshow’s position was between $65,000 and $70,000 per year.

Court Finds Positive Performance Reviews Sufficient to Support Disability Discrimination Claim

November 11, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent disability discrimination opinion from the District of New Jersey reflects the relatively low burden an employee has to meet to have his case decided by a jury.

Damian Melton, a Type I diabetic, worked as a doorperson for Resorts Casino Hotel in Atlantic City for approximately six years. Due to his medical condition, Resorts granted Mr. Melton an intermittent leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and did not require him to work the graveyard shift as a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

In August 2010, Mr. Melton injured his shoulder, necessitating surgery. When he returned to work a few months later the hotel assigned him to a light duty job as a valet cashier.

Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable Unless Clearly Indicates Waiving Right to Go to Court

October 15, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In recent years, employers have been increasingly requiring their employees to sign arbitration agreements. An arbitration agreement is when you agree to have a private arbitrator, rather than a judge or jury, decide your legal disputes. Arbitration generally is considered less fair to individual employees and more favorable to big businesses. Nonetheless, courts generally enforce arbitration agreements as long as they are clear and unambiguous.

However, a recent ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court recognizes that to be valid, an arbitration agreement has to make it clear you are waiving your right to pursue your case in court. The case, Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., was decided in the context of a consumer contract dispute. However, it seems likely the same principle would apply to employment law arbitration agreements.

The arbitration provision in the Atalese case states that “any claim or dispute . . . shall be submitted to binding arbitration upon the request of either party.” It also indicates that an arbitrator will “resolve the dispute” and the “decision of the arbitrator shall be final.”

Judge Finds Employer Failed to Present Legitimate Reason for Failing to Promote Employee

October 8, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent case, a federal judge in the District of New Jersey denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment because the employer failed to meet its very limited burden to provide a legitimate non-discriminatory reason why it failed to promote her.

The employee, Virginia Forchion, claims Sears Outlet Stores, LLC, failed to promote her to the position of lead sales associate because of her age, gender, and race. She filed a lawsuit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). Sears asked a trial judge to dismiss her case on a motion for summary judgment. The judge denied the motion, finding Sears failed to provide any explanation why it hired Bradley Stonehouse, a younger white male, for the position instead of promoting Ms. Forchion.

To understand why the judge denied Sears’ motion, it is necessary to understand how judges analyze employment discrimination claims. Since proving discrimination case can be difficult, judges apply something called the McDonnell Douglas test. Under that test, the burden shifts back and forth between the employer and the employee.

New Jersey Court Upholds $800,000 and $600,000 Emotional Distress Awards in Race Discrimination Lawsuit

September 29, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent ruling from New Jersey’s Appellate Division upheld a $1.4 million emotional distress damages award to two employees in a race discrimination case.

Brothers Ramon and Jeffrey Cuevas worked for The Wentworth Group. Ramon was the company’s only Hispanic regional vice president. Jeffrey Cuevas was hired as a portfolio manager, and subsequently promoted to executive director.

Ramon claims the company subjected him to a variety of racially-motivated derogatory comments including members of management:

New Jersey Passes Law Protecting Job Candidates with Criminal Records

September 23, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last month, New Jersey passed a new employment law that provides some protection to individuals who have criminal records. Officially named The Opportunity to Compete Act, the law is more commonly referred to as a “ban-the-box” law because it limits when employers can include a box on job applications to indicate whether the job candidate has been convicted of a crime.

The law was passed because it has become extremely common for large companies to conduct criminal background searches before they make hiring decisions. According to the New Jersey Legislature, this impacts tens of millions of adults who have criminal records, even though they can make a valuable contribution to the workforce. The Legislature considers this particularly important since finding employment significantly reduces the likelihood someone will repeat their criminal behavior.

The Act prohibits employers from requiring job candidates to indicate whether they have a criminal record, or from asking questions about a job candidate’s criminal record during the job application process. However, it permits employers to ask limited follow up questions if a job applicant discloses that he or she has a criminal history.

Company Must Inform Employee in Advance Regarding Change to Commission Policy

September 16, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this month, in Temple-Inland, Inc. v. Kenneth Dee, New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled that a company could be liable for failing to inform an employee about a change to its commission plan until after the change went into effect. The case also addresses numerous other issues in a complex dispute between the company and its former employee.

Kenneth Dee worked as a salesperson for Temple-Inland, Inc. for fourteen years. Temple-Inland paid Mr. Dee a base salary plus commissions. The company eventually changed how it was calculating commissions. It apparently substantially reduced Mr. Dee’s commissions in comparison to his peers because he had been receiving extraordinarily high commissions from his best customer, Church & Dwight.

Mr. Dee complained about his reduced commissions. According to Mr. Dee, the Regional Vice President of Sales and Marketing indicated the company would address this by performing an audit. Mr. Dee further claims that although the audit revealed he was being underpaid, the company did nothing to remedy the situation.

No Expert Report Required for Doctor to Testify About Employee’s Disability

August 26, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently ruled that a treating physician can testify about an employee’s disability without submitting an expert report. Normally, a witness who is going to provide an expert opinion is required to submit a formal report explaining his or her opinions prior to the trial.

Patricia Del Vecchio worked as police dispatcher for the Township of Bridgewater for approximately a decade. Over the last five years she held that position, her gastroenterologist, Gary Ciambotti, M.D., wrote fourteen doctors’ notes indicating that due to a variety of gastroenterological conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome, Ms. Del Vecchia should not work the night shift unless it was an emergency.

For three years, Bridgewater did not require Ms. Del Vecchio to work the night shift, but eventually it asked her to transfer to the midnight shift. She indicated she did not want to work the midnight shift because of her medical condition. In response, Bridgewater told her that if she did not accept a transfer to another job it would fire her.

EEOC Issues New Pregnancy Discrimination Enforcement Guidelines

August 1, 2014 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A few weeks ago, the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new enforcement guidelines regarding the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and related claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The PDA prohibits most employers from discriminating against employees based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It also requires them to treat women based on their ability or inability to work, rather than based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because they have a disability, including a pregnancy-related disability. It also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to permit disabled employees to perform the essential functions of their jobs.

The EEOC’s guidelines make it clear employers cannot discriminate against employees based on a current or past pregnancy. It notes employees are more likely to prove discrimination claims based on past pregnancies when the employer takes an adverse action (such as termination or demotion) relatively quickly after the employee gave birth. For instance, there can be a strong inference of pregnancy discrimination when an employer takes a negative action while the employee is still on a maternity leave, or right after she returns from one.