Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD)

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 Jersey Guidance Establishes That Employers Can Require That Employees Receive COVID-19 Vaccine to Enter Workplace

by

Posted in Policies and Handbooks

On March 26, 2021

With COVID-19 vaccinations becoming more accessible to individuals, the question on many employers’ minds is whether the employer can now require its employees to be vaccinated in order to return to the workplace. On March 19, 2021, the New Jersey Department of Health (DOH) addressed this question and published guidance stating that an employer can require that its employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine to return to the workplace. The DOH guidance, however, does include exceptions to mandatory vaccination policies implemented by employers as follows: if an employee cannot get the COVID-19 vaccine because of a disability that precludes him or her from being vaccinated; where an employee’s doctor has advised the employee not to get the vaccine while pregnant or breastfeeding; or where an employee has a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance that precludes him or her from receiving the vaccine, an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation from its mandatory vaccine policy – unless doing so would impose an undue burden on its operations. In the event an employee seeks to be exempt from a mandatory vaccination policy for medical reasons (described above), his or her employer may request medical documentation from the employee to confirm the employee (i) has a disability precluding him or her from vaccination, or (ii) has been...

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...

New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Issues Guidance on the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act

by

Posted in Discrimination

On March 12, 2020

On March 2, 2020, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (“DCR”) issued a Guidance Memorandum on the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act (“the Act”), which took effect in July 2018 and is widely considered to be one of the most employee-protective equal pay laws in the nation. In a statement made on the day of the Guidance Memorandum’s (“guidelines”) release, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy reaffirmed his administration’s intention to eliminate discriminatory pay practices throughout the State that have historically prevented women and other minority groups from earning equal pay. The guidelines include a legal overview, with specific attention paid to the Act’s changes to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), and provide answers to Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”). The first section of the guidelines offer an overview of the Act’s main provisions and provide details on how the Act modifies the LAD. As a refresher, the overview outlines the DCR’s position as to the five most important provisions of the Act: Expanded Remedies for Pay Discrimination: The Act amended the LAD to implement a six-year “lookback” period which allows employees who prove pay discrimination to recover up to six years of back pay if the discrimination was continuous and a violation occurred within the LAD’s two-year statute of limitations. The Act...

UPDATE: Mandatory Nondiscrimination Policies, Training and Reporting: Proposed New Jersey Legislation Would Impose New Obligations on Employers and Lengthen the Limitations Period

by

Posted in Discrimination / Policies and Handbooks

On February 24, 2020

On February 18, 2020, Governor Phil Murphy continued his quest to enhance employee protections in New Jersey by announcing proposed legislation aimed at strengthening New Jersey’s already-expansive prohibitions against harassment and discrimination in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). According to the proposed legislative findings, the bill was designed to “reject the norms of yesterday that overlooked workplace harassment and discrimination as business as usual.” The proposed legislation comes on the heels of a report released by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) this month, Preventing and Eliminating Sexual Harassment in New Jersey, the result of a trio of public hearings held in September 2019. Employers are already scrambling to keep up with legislation directed at protecting call center employees, cracking down on misclassification, and expanding the rights of employees affected by a mass layoff or plant closing. Here are the highlights from the proposed legislation: Expanded Definition of Employee. Domestic workers and unpaid interns would be added to the definition of “employees” under the NJLAD and there are specific provisions governing domestic workers. Extended Time for Filing Claims. The current two-year statute of limitations applicable to claims brought under the NJLAD would be extended to three years. And, the time to file a complaint with the DCR would be extended from...

Governor Murphy Signs Bill Making Nondisclosure Provisions Unenforceable and Against Public Policy

by

Posted in Discrimination / Employment Agreements / Restrictive Covenants

On March 19, 2019

On Monday, March 18, 2019, Governor Phil Murphy signed Senate Bill No. 121, which makes nondisclosure provisions in employment contracts or settlement agreements that are intended to conceal the details of claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment unenforceable and against public policy in New Jersey. Section 1 of the new law warns that a “provision in any employment contract that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment” is against public policy and unenforceable.” The law does not define “employment contract” and leaves open to interpretation whether it applies to all agreements between employer and employee, whether an employment agreement, a separation agreement, or a settlement agreement. The prohibition on waiving any procedural right would make arbitration agreements, which by their nature waive the right to a jury trial, also invalid and unenforceable in contravention of the Federal Arbitration Act and recent United States Supreme Court precedent. An immediate challenge to this aspect of the law is likely since it casts doubt on all arbitration agreements between an employer and employee that seek to include claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Section 1 also prohibits a prospective waiver of any right or remedy under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) or any other statute or...

New Jersey Court Invalidates Arbitration Agreement that Fails to Designate an Arbitration Forum

by

Posted in Alternative Dispute Resolution

On October 30, 2018

The New Jersey courts have consistently held that the mutual assent necessary to support a binding arbitration agreement is not present where the agreement does not sufficiently put the parties on notice that, by agreeing to arbitrate, they are giving up the right to have their dispute resolved in a judicial forum and are waiving whatever rights they might have to a jury trial. In Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., the New Jersey Appellate Division has now held that the mutual assent necessary to support a binding arbitration agreement will also be found lacking when the agreement does not designate the forum in which the arbitration will take place and otherwise fails to define the arbitration process. Background The plaintiff, Marilyn Flanzman, after being terminated from her position as a weight loss counselor for the defendant, a weight loss and nutrition company, brought suit in Superior Court, Law Division under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, alleging age discrimination and harassment. The defendant moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement into which the parties had entered during the plaintiff’s employment, which, in relevant part, stated: Any and all claims or controversies arising out of or relating to [plaintiff’s] employment, the termination thereof, or otherwise arising between [plaintiff] and [defendant] shall, in lieu of...

Federal Courts Uphold Arbitration Agreements Via Email

by

Posted in Alternative Dispute Resolution

On October 24, 2018

Recently, federal district courts in New York and New Jersey turned aside employee attacks on arbitration agreements challenged on the grounds that the employer’s communication of its arbitration policy via email was inadequate. The courts in both Lockette v. Morgan Stanley and Schmell v. Morgan Stanley held that the employees’ assertions that they never saw the email forwarding the terms of the arbitration agreement were insufficient to overcome the employer’s evidence that the email had been delivered to the employees’ email inboxes. Lockette John Lockette sued Morgan Stanley in federal court in New York after Morgan Stanley terminated his employment in 2016. Lockette alleged he had been the victim of race discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal law. The company moved to compel arbitration. Prior to 2015, the company had in place an internal dispute resolution program entitled “CARE” (Convenient Access to Resolutions for Employees) for employees registered with FINRA, who could select, but were not required to select, arbitration as a means of resolving statutory discrimination claims. In 2015, however, the company expanded the CARE program to cover all employees and to require the arbitration of employment claims, including discrimination claims, among others. Under the terms of the expanded program, an employee’s continued employment would be considered his or her acceptance to be covered by...

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