Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Category: Discrimination

What Employers Should Know About Biden’s AI Executive Order

by and

Posted in Discrimination / Labor

On November 7, 2023

On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The sweeping Executive Order sets out standards for safe and secure uses of AI with an emphasis on privacy protections, the promotion of innovation and competition, avoiding discrimination and bias, and supporting workers. The Executive Order requires principles and best practices to be established by the Secretary of Labor within 180 days of the Executive Order. The principles and best practices will provide guidance for employers to “mitigate AI’s potential harms to employees’ well-being and maximize its potential benefits.” The principles and best practices must address the following, • job-displacement risks and career opportunities related to AI, including effects on job skills and evaluation of applicants and workers • labor standards and job quality, including issues related to the equity, protected activity, compensation, health, and safety implications of AI in the workplace • implications for workers of employers’ AI-related collection and use of data about them, including transparency, engagement, management, and activity protected under worker-protection laws Agencies will likely adopt the Secretary of Labor’s guidelines, as appropriate and consistent with applicable laws. We can also expect guidance on AI workforce development, as well as employee monitoring, which would ensure that workers whose...

New York City Pay Transparency: What Employers Need to Know

by and

Posted in Discrimination / Policies and Handbooks

On October 26, 2022

Effective November 1, 2022, covered employers in New York City must comply with new legislation concerning pay transparency. Specifically, the New York City Pay Transparency Law (“Pay Transparency Law” or “Law”) amends the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) by requiring employers to include minimum and maximum base salaries and wages for a position when advertising or posting a job, promotion, or transfer opportunity. We discuss the new law and guidance issued by the New York City Commission on Human Rights (“Commission”) below. New York City joins a number of other jurisdictions that have passed some form of a pay transparency law, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Washington. Who Are “Covered Employers?” The Pay Transparency Law applies to all New York City employers with at least four employees (which includes owners and individual employers). For counting purposes, all four employees need not work in New York City or in the same location. Instead, a particular workplace is covered so long as one of the employees works in the city. Employment agencies are also covered by the Law regardless of size, but the Law excepts temporary help firms seeking applicants to join their pool of available workers. What the Pay Transparency Law Requires Any advertisement for a job, promotion, or transfer...

The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission Issues Much-Needed Interim Guidance on Managing Employees Working While Under the Influence of Cannabis Products

by and

Posted in Discrimination

On October 13, 2022

The enactment of the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Enforcement, Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), signed into law in February 2021, legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults ages 21 and older in New Jersey. However, the right to marijuana use is not unfettered, and an employer’s right to maintain a drug-free workplace is often easier said than done where cannabis is concerned. Under CREAMMA, an employer cannot discharge or take any other adverse action against an employee because the employee uses cannabis items outside of the workplace. An employer may, however, require an employee to undergo a drug test: Upon reasonable suspicion of an employee’s use of a cannabis item while performing his or her work responsibilities, or Upon finding any observable signs of intoxication related to use of a cannabis item, or Following a work-related accident subject to investigation by an employer In this regard, CREAMMA directs the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC), the entity tasked with crafting and enforcing rules and regulations governing the sale and use of cannabis in New Jersey, to prescribe regulations for issuing a Workplace Impairment Recognition Expert (WIRE) certification to full- or part-time employees or others contracted to provide services on behalf of an employer. Through education and training, a WIRE becomes certified in detecting and identifying...

The New Jersey Appellate Division Expands Hostile Environment Liability Under the LAD

by

Posted in Discrimination

On June 14, 2022

On June 2, 2022, in Morris v. Rutgers-Newark University, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided, in a case of first impression, the extent to which a plaintiff alleging harassment in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“the LAD”) can use acts of harassment against others to establish the existence of a hostile environment. The case involved claims brought by members of the women’s basketball team of Rutgers-Newark University (“the University”), who were subjected to a hostile educational environment by the Interim Head Coach of the team. Although the case involved allegations of a hostile educational environment, the court’s decision is likely to be viewed equally applicable to hostile work environment claims and thus is one employers should be aware of. Background The plaintiffs included five players and the team manager for the University’s women’s basketball team for the 2014-2015 season, five of whom identified themselves as Black or African American while one identified as Hispanic. Four of the plaintiffs identified themselves as either lesbian, gay, or bisexual. In addition to the University, the defendants included the team’s Interim Head Coach for that season, the University’s Athletic Director, and the University’s Associate Provost. The plaintiffs brought suit in the Law Division of the Superior Court under the LAD alleging they were the victims of...

Meade v. Twp. of Livingston: Subordinate’s Indirect Influence Can Leave Employers Open to Liability Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

by

Posted in Discrimination

On January 25, 2022

On December 30, 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer in a case involving an allegation that a subordinate’s discriminatory animus indirectly influenced an employment termination decision in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD). In Meade v. Twp. of Livingston, the employee, a town manager, claimed that the town council decided to terminate her employment due to the gender bias of a male subordinate, the town police chief. Contrary to the trial court and appellate division, the Supreme Court concluded that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the police chief’s alleged bias influenced the town council’s decision, thereby rendering the case appropriate for a trial. In so ruling, the court noted that the matter was not a cat’s paw case (as argued by amicus curae National Employment Lawyers Association of New Jersey) because the town manager was not alleging the police chief influenced the town council to fire her, but that the town council’s decision simply was influenced by the police chief’s own purportedly discriminatory view of women. In coming to its decision, the court walked through the familiar McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting framework. It first explained that the town manager presented a prima facie case of employment discrimination: (1) the...

NJ Supreme Court Holds a Supervisor’s Use of Two Racial Slurs Was Enough to Send the Claims to a Jury

by

Posted in Discrimination

On July 8, 2021

On June 16, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Rios v. Meda Pharmaceutical, Inc., Tina Cheng-Avery, Glenn Gnirrep, et. al. that a supervisor’s use of two offensive slurs based on race/national origin and directed at a Hispanic employee was sufficiently “severe and pervasive” to establish a hostile work environment claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), survive summary judgment, and proceed to trial. In Rios, Meda Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Meda” or “Company”), hired plaintiff, Armando Rios, Jr., a Hispanic male, as the Company’s Director of Brand Marketing, reporting to individual defendant Tina Cheng-Avery, the Senior Director of Commercial Operations (“supervisor”). Plaintiff alleged that his supervisor directed the term “Sp–” towards him while at work. More specifically, plaintiff claimed that a month after his hire in May 2015, he told his supervisor that he and his wife were searching for a new home, and, in response, she stated, “it must be hard for a Sp– to have to get FHA loans.” According to plaintiff, shortly after this comment was made, his supervisor allegedly stated to him that an actress who had been “auditioning” for a company commercial would be hired “if she didn’t look too Sp–ky.” (Chief Justice Rabner noted that the court had used “the offensive language in the record” as it...

New York State Enacts Law Providing Paid Time Off for COVID-19 Vaccination

by

Posted in Discrimination / Employee Benefits / Policies and Handbooks

On March 25, 2021

Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed legislation S2558A/A3354-B granting all public and private employees in New York paid leave to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. The new legislation, which is effective as of March 12, 2021 and expires on December 31, 2022, amends the New York Civil Service Law (with respect to public employees), along with the New York Labor Law, and provides public and private employees with up to four hours of paid leave per vaccine injection. In connection with this legislation, the New York Labor Law was amended to add Section 196-c, which provides that: New York employees must receive paid COVID-19 vaccine leave of up to four hours per vaccine injection. Thus, employees receiving a two-injection COVID-19 vaccine (such as those currently offered by Pfizer and Moderna) will receive up to eight hours of paid leave to obtain the vaccine. The “four hour” maximum does not apply to an employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) providing a greater number of hours of leave to obtain the vaccine or where an employer authorizes additional time off for employees to receive the vaccine. The leave must be paid at an employee’s regular rate of pay. The leave cannot be charged against “any other” employee leave. Accordingly, employers cannot require employees to use other available...

EEOC Injects Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccine Practices in the Workplace

by and

Posted in Disability / Discrimination / Policies and Handbooks

On December 23, 2020

In the wake of the Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) addressed a question weighing heavily on the minds of businesses and their employees: can an employer require its employees to get vaccinated? The EEOC’s December 16, 2020 guidance answered that question in the affirmative, but, as with most pronouncements during the pandemic, the issue is far from simple, and employers must pay close attention to what the guidance says, and what it does not say, when crafting their COVID-19 vaccination policies. The EEOC Guidance characterizes an employer-mandated vaccine as an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-permitted, safety-based qualification standard, akin to “a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace.” Employers can require employees to get a COVID-19 vaccine, but must allow for exceptions where employees are unable to receive the vaccine because of either disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs. Employees with Disabilities: Where a mandatory vaccination policy would screen out an individual with a disability, the employer must show that the unvaccinated employee would pose a direct threat in the workplace due to a “significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or...

Supreme Court Asked to Decide Prior Salary/Equal Pay Act Issue

by

Posted in Discrimination

On May 26, 2020

The Fresno County Office of Education has requested the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from an en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that the Equal Pay Act (“the EPA”) prohibits an employer when setting the compensation of a female employee from considering her compensation at her prior job. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the County’s appeal, it will be the second time the case will come before the Supreme Court. Previously, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision because one of the appellate court judges who considered Fresno County’s appeal passed away, and was not replaced before the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion. Given that there is now a properly issued Ninth Circuit opinion, and given a split among the Courts of Appeals over whether and under what circumstances the EPA permits a new employer’s consideration of a woman’s prior salary when setting compensation, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will take up the case. Background After teaching middle school for a number of years, Aileen Rizo was hired by Fresno County as a math consultant. The county employed a twelve-level job classification system and each level was comprised of a ten-step salary schedule. In accordance with its standard operating procedures, the County determined Rizo’s...

New Jersey Supreme Court Allows Disability Discrimination Claim Brought by Medical Marijuana User Employee to Move Forward

by

Posted in Discrimination

On April 16, 2020

Last month, New Jersey’s high court ruled in Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. that an employee’s disability discrimination claim brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), arising from being terminated for his use of medical marijuana, was not barred by the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA), and that he had sufficiently stated his claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, a funeral director, brought suit against defendant-employer/Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. (“Carriage”), and others, based on, among other things, allegations that defendants violated the LAD by terminating him due to his disability and failing to accommodate him, as a result of his lawful use of medical marijuana for treatment of his cancer, as permitted by the CUMMA and in accordance with his physician’s treatment plan. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, and the trial court granted the motion, with prejudice, finding plaintiff was lawfully terminated for violating Carriage’s drug use policy after a positive drug test, given to him by his employer after plaintiff’s car was struck by another vehicle while plaintiff was driving for work purposes. In reaching its decision, the trial court relied, in part, on the CUMMA’s declaration that employers are not required to accommodate medical marijuana use in the workplace. Plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate...

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories