New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

New York Judge Dismisses Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action Against Bloomberg L.P.

August 18, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Yesterday, a federal Judge in Manhattan dismissed a class action claim from a gender and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit that the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had filed against Bloomberg L.P. In the case, the EEOC alleged that Bloomberg had engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against pregnant employees and female employees upon their return from maternity leaves. Judge Loretta A. Preska, the Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissed the class action claim because she found the EEOC had not presented enough evidence to prove a pattern and practice of gender or pregnancy discrimination.

A pattern and practice case is when a group of employees claim a company has a broad practice or systemic pattern of unlawful discrimination. In this instance, the EEOC filed the lawsuit on behalf of female employees who claimed Bloomberg had demoted them, lowered their salaries, reduced the number of employees reporting to them, took away some of their job responsibilities, excluded them from meetings, and/or otherwise subjected them to stereotypes about female caregivers. In addition to the three plaintiffs named in the original lawsuit, 78 other women had joined the case, for a total of 81 class members.

Pregnancy Discrimination 2.jpg In her 64-page opinion in EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P., Judge Preska explained that ordinarily employees have to prove a pattern and practice of discrimination with a combination of statistical and anecdotal evidence of discrimination, to show the discrimination was part of a company-wide pattern or practice. She indicated that it is unusual that anecdotal evidence alone can prove a pattern or practice of discrimination, especially at a large company like Bloomberg, which employs more than 10,000 employees.

However, the EEOC apparently did not have any statistical evidence to support its claim. It also did not have any direct evidence of discrimination, or any evidence of an explicitly discriminatory policy. Instead, it tried to rely only on anecdotal evidence of discrimination. This evidence included the fact that nearly every one of the class members claimed that Bloomberg had decreased her compensation, job responsibilities and/or number of direct reports, either after she became pregnant or after she returned from her maternity leave.

In contrast, Bloomberg had at least two expert witnesses who concluded that there was no pattern or practice of discrimination at the company. Specifically, one of Bloomberg’s expert witnesses, Dr. Michael Ward, used statistics to conclude that class members actually received higher average compensation than non-class members. He also found no significant differences between the raises class members received versus non-class members. Another expert for Bloomberg, Dr. John Johnson, concluded that the class members actually received nearly better raises after maternity leaves than employees who took time off for other reasons.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that while there might be some individual cases of pregnancy and gender discrimination at Bloomberg, the EEOC did not have enough evidence to prove a pattern or practice of discrimination. Accordingly, Judge Preska dismissed the class action from the case. However, the EEOC has indicated that it intends to continue to pursue the individual claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs.

Employees: Beware of How You Request Time Off For a Disability

August 3, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided a case with an important lesson for employees requesting time off due to a disability, and the employment law attorneys who represent them. Specifically, in Prigge v. Sears Holding Corp., the Third Circuit dismissed an employee’s disability discrimination case on the basis that the employee was fired for failing to provide all of information his employer requested about his medical absences, and lied to the company about his disability. The Third Circuit is the federal court that handles appeals from the District of New Jersey.

John Prigge worked for Sears Holding Corp., as a store coach, from April 2007 through February 2008. Mr. Prigge was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He began feeling ill in December 2007, and took at least two days off from work and had to leave work early on several other occasions. However, he lied to his supervisors by claiming he needed the time off for radiation treatment due to a recurrence of his prostate cancer.

Mr. Prigge was subsequently hospitalized for a week in late January 2008 because his depression had gotten worse and he was having suicidal thoughts. When he was released from the hospital, he contacted his supervisor and told him he had been absent because he suffers from bipolar disorder and had been at a mental health hospital. Mr. Prigge’s boss told him he could not return to work until he submitted doctor’s notes from both the hospital and the physician who had treated his prostate cancer. The next day, Mr. Prigge admitted to his boss that he had not actually undergone prostate cancer treatment in December 2007 or January 2008. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.jpg

Court Finds it Can Be Reasonable to Complain About Sexual Harassment Only to Harasser

July 29, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from harassing and otherwise discriminating against employees based on their race, national origin, color, religion, and sex. Under Title VII, when a supervisor harasses an employee, the company often has a defense if it can prove (1) it used reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment, such as by having an anti-harassment policy, and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of an opportunity to stop the harassment, such as by not objecting to it under the company’s anti-harassment policy. This defense is often referred to as the Faragher/Ellerth defense, based on the names of the two United States Supreme Court cases that created it.

But would it be reasonable for an employee to complain to the harasser, and nobody else? According to Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court which handles appeals from New York, whether that is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the case.

Specifically, in Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., crewmember Diane Gorzynski claims her former employer, JetBlue Airways Corporation, subjected her to sexual harassment. She says her supervisor, James Celeste, sexually harassed her by making massaging gestures with his hands; saying he wanted to massage breasts; indicating he wanted to suck on a particular woman’s breasts; telling a crewmember that his wife was going to a “sex toy” party; asking another female crewmember if she had “gotten enough loving” over the weekend; announcing that Ms. Gorzynski had been a table dancer in the past; announcing that another female crewmember was a former pin-up girl; grabbing Ms. Gorzynski and other female crewmembers around the waist; attempting to tickle Ms. Gorzynski and other female crewmembers; looking at women as if he were mentally undressing them; and frequently making inappropriate sexual comments and gestures at work. The Second Circuit recognized that Mr. Celeste’s behavior could have created a sexually hostile work environment for Ms. Gorzynski.

Supreme Court Finds Retaliation Against Employee’s Fiancee Violates Federal Anti-Discrimination Law

July 20, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

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.

New York Employees Can Prove Overtime Claim Even if They Falsely Recorded Working No Overtime

July 12, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court recently ruled that an employee who follows his supervisor’s instruction to falsely report that he did not work any overtime hours still can pursue an overtime claim. It reversed a decision from the Western District of New York, which had dismissed the claim because it did not believe the employee could prove how many hours of overtime he had worked.

Greg Kuebel was a Retail Specialist for Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. He filed class action lawsuit against Black & Decker, claiming the company’s overtime pay practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Mr. Kuebel claims Black & Decker violated the law by failing to pay him for the overtime hours he worked but did not record on his timesheet — in other words, his “off-the-clock” overtime hours.

Black & Decker’s official policy required Retail Specialists to accurately record their hours on timesheets that they submit to their managers. There was no official Black & Decker policy which prohibited Retail Specialists from working, recording, or being paid for overtime. However, Black & Decker expected its Retail Specialists to finish their work in a 40-hour work week.

Mr. Kuebel alleges it was impossible to finish all of his work in 40 hours per week, and as a result often worked overtime. However, he did not list any overtime on his timesheets, and therefore was not paid for his overtime hours. Mr. Kuebel explained that he falsified his timesheets because his supervisors instructed him not to record more than 40 hours of work per week because the company could not afford overtime. Mr. Kuebel testified that to the best of his memory he worked more than 40 hours almost every week, and averaged between 1 to 5 hours of overtime per week. After Mr. Kuebel told his supervisor that he had been falsifying his timesheets, Black & Decker fired him for poor performance, dishonesty, and falsification of company records.

In Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., the Court explained that to prove an overtime case under the FLSA, an employee has to prove he was not properly paid for working more than 40 hours in a work week, and his employer either actually knew it or should have known about it under the circumstances. To prove the amount of overtime pay to which he is entitled, an employee needs enough evidence to show the amount and extent of the overtime he worked. However, he does not have to prove the amount of overtime he worked with definiteness, and can prove his overtime hours through an inference. Accordingly, the Court ruled that when a company’s time records are inaccurate or inadequate, the solution is not to penalize the employee by denying him any legal recovery.

To summarize, an employee can win an overtime case if (1) he proves he actually worked overtime and was not properly paid for it, and (2) he has enough evidence to show how much overtime he worked through a reasonable inference. An employee can meet this burden through estimates based on his own recollection. This can be true even when the employee admittedly falsified his own timesheets, at least where the employee’s falsification was based on an instruction from a manager or supervisor. That is because it is the employer’s duty to maintain accurate time records for its employees, and employers cannot delegate that duty to their employee. Once an employer knows or has reason to know an employee is working overtime, it cannot deny compensation simply because the employee failed to properly record or claim his overtime hours.

Supreme Court Rejects Gender Discrimination Class Action Against Wal-Mart

July 1, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On June 20, 2011, in a closely watched employment law case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a group of approximately one-and-a-half-million female employees of Wal-Mart could not bring a class action gender discrimination lawsuit against the company. Specifically, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court found the women’s claims were not similar enough to each other to proceed as a class action. It reached that conclusion because the alleged discriminatory decisions were made by hundreds of different managers throughout the country, and were not based on a uniform corporate policy.

Three women, Betty Dukes, Christine Kwapnoski, and Edith Arana filed the lawsuit. They alleged that Wal-Mart gave its local store managers broad discretion to make salary and promotional decisions, the managers used that discretion to discriminate against women, and the company knew about the discrimination but did nothing to stop it. The women claim this is discrimination on the basis of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination due to gender, race, color, and religion.

Class actions are cases in which one or more individuals bring a case on behalf of a much larger group. To bring a class action, the plaintiffs must prove:

The class is so large that it is impractical for each plaintiff to sue individually;
There are questions of law and fact common to the whole group;
The claims of the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit (the class representatives) are typical of the claims of the rest of the group; and
The class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the whole group.

In the Walmart case, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs could not meet the first two requirements because they did not have any evidence that Wal-Mart had a company-wide policy or practice of discriminating against women. The Court found it is not enough to show the company gave broad discretion to its managers, and many or most of those managers abused their discretion by discriminating. Rather, it concluded that since the members of the potential class had been impacted by millions of separate employment decisions made by thousands of different supervisors, it would be impossible to decide all of their claims in a single case. As a result, it ruled that the case cannot proceed as a class action. Instead, it sent it back to the trial court so Ms. Dukes, Ms. Kwapnoski, and Ms. Arana each can try to prove her individual gender discrimination case against Wal-Mart.

New Jersey Employees Can Enforce Employer’s Promise of Reinstatement After Maternity Leave

June 22, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In an important employment law decision, on June 8, 2011, New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled that an employee can enforce her employer’s promise that she would have a job when she returned from her maternity leave. The Court reached that conclusion even though the company, Telcordia Technologies, Inc., included a clear disclaimer in both its Code of Business Ethics and the employee’s job application which stated that she is an employee-at-will who can be fired “at any time, with or without grounds, just cause or reason and without giving prior notice.”

In Lapidoth v. Telcordia Technologies, Inc., employee Sara Lapidoth asked her employer for a six-month maternity leave from her position as a manager on a product called ARIS, for the birth of her tenth child. The letter Telcordia sent her granting her leave also guaranteed that the company would reinstate her to the same job or a comparable one if she returned to work within 12 months. Ms. Lapidoth later asked Telcordia to extend her leave by 6 months, for a total of a one-year maternity leave. Telcordia granted her request through another letter that promised to reinstate her at the end of her leave.

However, before Ms. Lapidoth was ready to return from her maternity leave, Telcordia decided to eliminate one of its two ARIS manager positions. The company decided to lay off Ms. Lapidoth because the only other ARIS manager had slightly better performance ratings. Since the company did not have any appropriate job openings, it fired Ms. Lapidoth.

The Appellate Division ruled that Ms. Lapidoth’s maternity leave was not protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) because she took off more than 12 weeks. Both the FMLA and the NJFLA require employers to give qualified employees up to 12 weeks off for the birth of a child.

However, the Court ruled that the letters Telcordia sent to Ms. Lapidoth could be enforceable employment contracts that guaranteed her a job when she was ready to return from her maternity leave. It found that, even though the company’s Code of Business Ethics and Ms. Lapidoth’s employment application said she was an employee-at-will, and indicated that nothing else could create any contractual rights between her and the company, the letters granting her maternity leave seemed to contradict those statements. The Court also stated that, although the letters said the company did not have to reinstate Ms. Lapidoth if it had to eliminate her job, that was not necessarily a defense because the company decided it had to eliminate one of two ARIS manager positions, but not necessarily Ms. Lapidoth’s position. The Court also noted that Telcordia reinstated Ms. Lapidoth after each of her nine previous maternity leaves. Based on the circumstances, the Appellate Division concluded that a jury could find the letters guaranteeing Ms. Ladipodth a job at the end of her maternity leave created an enforceable employment contract.

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

June 9, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

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.

Court Rules Public Employee’s Internet Postings Can Be Protected by the First Amendment

June 8, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

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 publicly, 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.

Filing Lawsuit Can Be Protected Under New Jersey’s Whistleblower Law

June 3, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

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.