Reduction in force

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.

Requiring Employee to Seek Another Job is an Adverse Employment Action

March 13, 2022 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent case recognizes that an employer’s decision to remove an employee from her job and give her an opportunity to search for another position within the company is an adverse employment action. In other words, if it is done for a discriminatory reason, doing so can violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

Kathleen Fowler, who has epilepsy and is a cancer survivor, worked for AT&T for 30 years and is over 60 years old. In December 2015, AT&T announced a plan to reduce the Technology Planning and Engineering business unit for which Ms. Fowler worked by eliminating numerous positions. AT&T placed the employees impacted by this reduction in force on “surplus status,” meaning they were given the choice to accept a severance package and leave the company, or remain employed for 60 days to search for another job within AT&T. If an employee on surplus status was not offered another position within those 60 days, then she would receive the severance benefits.

Ms. Fowler elected to go onto surplus status. During that period, she was offered two positions, one in New Jersey and the other in Texas. Even though she was better qualified for the position in Texas, Ms. Fowler accepted the job as a senior system engineer because it was in New Jersey and she did not want to interrupt her cancer treatment.

Lack of Evidence of Alleged Corporate Restructuring Can Prove Discrimination

July 2, 2021 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision from the District of New Jersey concludes that, when an employer claims it fired an employee as part of a corporate restructuring, but has no documents to prove there was a restructuring, can be enough to prove age discrimination in violation of New Jersey law.

In 2014, Talbird Reeves Sams began working for Pinnacle Treatment Centers, Inc. His job was to find new locations for new facilities, and to help Pinnacle open those facilities.

In 2016, Pinnacle’s Chief Development Officer, Robert O’Sullivan, told Mr. Sams that his position was being eliminated due to “corporate restructuring” and his employment was being terminated as a result. At that time, Mr. Sams was 58 years old.