The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

On March 29, 2012, the Appellate Division held, in Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center, et al., A-4914-09T1 (N.J. App. Div. Mar. 29, 2012), that an employer, Liberty Anesthesia Associates, LLC ("Liberty"), was equitably estopped from enforcing an arbitration clause contained in an employment contract. Because Liberty actively participated in the litigation -- and opted to wait until three days before trial to first invoke the arbitration clause -- the Court reasoned that Liberty had "voluntarily and intentionally decided to relinquish its right to arbitration as a forum to adjudicate plaintiff's claims as a matter of litigation strategy." Plaintiff, who is represented by New Jersey employment lawyers at the Resnick Law Group, will indeed have her day in court on her claims that the wrongful termination of her employment as a nurse anesthetist violated the Conscientious Employee Protection Act ("CEPA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD").

Background and Procedural History

Karen Cole ("Ms. Cole" or "plaintiff") was a dedicated and highly regarded Nurse Anesthetist, employed by Liberty, which provided anesthesia care at Jersey City Medical Center ("JCMC"). After months of complaining about questionable, and what she believed to be unlawful, medical practices at the hospital, Ms. Cole was accused of making unauthorized withdrawals from a Pyxis machine, which dispenses narcotics in the operating rooms. When the hospital advised her that hospital privileges would be temporarily suspended pending an investigation, her employer, Liberty, fired her, which then resulted in JCMC permanently terminating her services.

On September 21, 2007, Ms. Cole filed a lawsuit against Jersey City Medical Center (JCMC) alleging, inter alia, that JCMC violated CEPA by firing her in retaliation for her objections about defendants' fraud and violations of law, and violated the LAD by firing her because of her disability. On June 3, 2008, she filed an Amended Complaint which included Liberty as a defendant. Although Liberty asserted thirty-five affirmative defenses, it failed to mention or set forth as an affirmative defense anything about an arbitration agreement in its Answer.

Liberty participated extensively in discovery, and in January 2010, Liberty and JCMC each filed a motion for summary judgment. Prior to the oral argument, Ms. Cole settled her claims against JCMC. The Court denied Liberty's motion with respect to Ms. Cole's claims under CEPA and the LAD, but granted Liberty's motion with respect to Ms. Cole's common law claims. As in its Answer, Liberty failed to make any argument or mention of arbitration in connection with its motion for summary judgment.

On Friday, March 19, 2010, one business day before the scheduled trial, Liberty filed numerous motions in limine, including a motion to compel arbitration of all of Ms. Cole's claims, based on an arbitration clause in a standard employment contract signed by plaintiff. This was the first time Liberty made any attempt to compel arbitration in the case.

Trial Court Decision

Liberty's much dilatory explanation for not invoking the arbitration clause earlier in the litigation, was that arbitration was inappropriate until plaintiff settled her claims against JCMC. Liberty reasoned that, since JCMC was not a party to the employment agreement, plaintiff had "an absolute right to have a jury trial with respect to all of the claims that she had brought" against JCMC. Accordingly, Liberty argued that "it would have not made sense to arbitrate" plaintiff's claims against Liberty, while simultaneously litigating virtually identical claims against JCMC, because of the potential risk of inconsistent findings. Plaintiff opposed Liberty's motion, arguing that Liberty had waived its right to compel arbitration by virtue of both its failure to raise the issue as an affirmative defense and its active participation in the litigation up until trial.

Though the parties were preparing for jury selection, the trial judge dismissed the case and ordered the matter to proceed to aritration. Plaintiff appealed.

Appellate Division Decision

The Appellate Division noted, early in its published opinion, that "an arbitration agreement is construed and enforced under the same legal principles applicable to contracts in general." It went on to say that the doctrine of waiver applies in the context of enforcing a contractual provision to arbitrate.

The Court then emphasized facts that distinguished cases where defendants were held to have not waived their right to arbitration. It pointed out that, in Spaeth v. Srinivasan, 403 N.J. Super. 508, 516 (App. Div. 2008), the defendant filed its motion to compel arbitration "well before any meaningful exchange of discovery -- much less the discovery end date -- and well in advance of fixing a trial date." Moreover, it distinguished Hudik-Ross, Inc. v. 1530 Palisade Avenue Corp., 131 N.J. Super. 159, 166-67 (App. Div. 1974) on the grounds that in that case, the defendants raised the arbitration issue as an affirmative defense and filed their motion to compel arbitration only four months into the litigation.

The Court also relied on Farese v. McGarry, 237 N.J. Super. 385, 394 (App. Div. 1989), in which a defendant was held to have waived his contractual right to arbitration where he amended his answer to allege the arbitration issue as a defense nine months after the complaint was filed and just two weeks before trial. The Court further stated that "Liberty knowingly decided not to raise its rights to arbitration because, as a matter of litigation strategy, it wanted to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings by two separate fact-finders. Liberty's actions operated to the detriment of plaintiff."

In concluding its analysis, the Court shifted its focus to the doctrine of equitable estoppel, applying the principles enunciated in Lopez v. Patel, 407 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2009). In Lopez, the defendants were equitably estopped from asserting their right to dismiss the complaint on collateral estoppel grounds because they unjustifiably waited until the morning of trial to raise the defense. Indeed, "the [p]laintiffs relied on the trial dates set by the court and unchallenged by defendants with the expectation that their negligence claims would be tried.... [The p]laintiffs . . . paid thousands of dollars in fees for expert testimony and other services at the trial they expected to start on January 7, 2008."

Similarly holding that Liberty was equitably estopped from enforcing the arbitration clause in Cole, the Court reasoned, "Our holding in Lopez, and the principles animating our analysis therein, apply with equal force here." It noted that "getting a case ready for trial before a jury requires a great deal more preparation than presenting a case before a panel of arbitrators. During the twenty months leading to the scheduled trial date, plaintiff actively engaged in discovery and prepared the case for trial." It concluded by stating that the decision to wait until three days before trial to first invoke an arbitration clause is "precisely the type of conduct we repudiated in Lopez," reversing and remanding the trial court's decision.

Impact of the Decision

The decision in Cole speaks loudly and clearly to employers who seek to enforce arbitration agreements. As a matter of litigation strategy, employers simply cannot have it both ways -- taking their chances at obtaining summary judgment after nearly two years of litigation, and when that fails, seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement, for the very first time, just days before trial. Equity will not stand for that sort of conduct. And, neither did Ms. Cole.

****

About the Resnick Law Group

The Resnick Law Group, P.C. has been handling employment law matters on behalf of employees, for more than 30 years in and around New Jersey and New York. If you feel your employer has violated your rights, contact the Resnick Law Group, P.C. at 973-781-1204 or 646-867-7997. We are located in East Hanover, N.J. and Midtown Manhattan on Broadway.

If you're reading this online blog, you almost certainly have at least one personal account on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or some other social media website. Your account is undoubtedly password protected, and if it is a Facebook or Twitter account (as opposed to a LinkedIn account, which tends to be more professional), you very likely have posts, photos, or other personal information on your page that you would prefer to keep private from a prospective employer.

However, a recent and disturbing trend is developing, as employers are increasingly demanding that job applicants provide their personal social media login information as part of the job application process. Some employers alternatively request a "shoulder surfing" session, during which job applicants log on to their social media accounts and navigate their posts while a nearby interviewer observes and reviews the applicant's posts, photos, comments, tweets, likes, friends, followers, connections, groups, etc. The issue has become so concerning that the American Civil Liberties Union (or ACLU) and some state lawmakers have become involved, advocating for the privacy rights of job applicants.

The issue at stake is whether a prospective employer's demand for personal social media login information of a job applicant, or request for a "shoulder surfing" session, violates the job applicant's right to privacy. New Jersey courts have not yet decided the issue, but it is clear that, when the issue does present itself in Court, New Jersey employment lawyers representing public sector applicants (those who apply to work for a government employer) will have more arguments than New Jersey employment lawyers representing private sector applicants (those who apply to work for a private sector employer).

Continue reading "Are New Jersey Employers Allowed to Ask for Access to a Job Applicant's Facebook Account?" »

While most are familiar with the minimum wage, some people may not realize that New Jersey law provides guidelines and protection regarding the wages employees get paid, how much they make in overtime and when they may be forced to work overtime.

Lawmakers have amended the law many times to provide protections for employees and employers and set up guidelines and regulations for each to follow. The law addresses questions about minimum wage, farm labor, the employment of minors, public contracts and other areas of employment law in New Jersey.

According to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, there are many laws on the books that mandate the minimum amount of money a person should make, when they should make overtime and how that's paid. Other wage-related issues are also addressed.

New Jersey Employment Lawyers have, for decades, represented workers who have been shorted wages, not been paid overtime in accordance with the law and faced other unlawful actions or behaviors in the workplace. We are available to discuss your case today.

Minimum Wage:

The minimum wage in New Jersey is $7.25 per hour and has been that rate since July 24, 2009. It has increased from $5.05 per hour in 1992 to the current rate. That is the minimum rate a person should be paid and they should receive time and a half the employee's rate for working more than 40 hours in a week.

This wage isn't applicable to part-time employees primarily engaged in the care and tending of children in the home of the employer, to people under 18 who don't have a special vocational school graduate permit or to people who sell motor vehicles, outside salesmen and saleswomen or people who volunteer for nonprofit groups.

Fringe benefits: Many employers in New Jersey offer health benefits coverage to their employees as an incentive to attract and retain qualified employees.

The legislature has found that it is a disservice to workers not to require that an employer provide prior notification to its employees when the employee health benefits plan will be terminated, for whatever reason. The law requires 30 days' notice if a plan will be terminated.

Mandatory overtime: New Jersey law establishes rules for health care employees, such as nurses and doctors, including that they shouldn't be forced to work more than 40 hours per week. However, in cases of "unforeseeable emergency circumstances" when overtime is required only as a last resort, the employee can be asked to work.

Other health care employees may be asked to work "mandatory overtime" in cases when there is "chronic short staffing," but it should be voluntary. The refusal to accept overtime work cannot be grounds for "discrimination, dismissal, discharge or any other penalty or employment decision adverse to the employee."

However, in case of an emergency situation, when overtime is a last resort or if the employer has tried other efforts to staff, overtime may be mandatory. The employer is required to provide up to one hour to arrange for the care of minor children, or elderly or disabled family members.

Continue reading "New Jersey Workers' Wages Explained, Violations Commonplace" »

New Jersey Employment Lawyers have written a series of blogs that help explain how the law in New Jersey applies to the worker and the company.

New Jersey law affords many protections to workers so they aren't subjected to workplace discrimination or retaliation, and their wage and hour rights are not violated. The law states that a person can't face discrimination based on any of the following reasons:

• race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex, familial status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for military service and mental or physical disability, perceived disability and AIDS and HIV status

The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development lays out information about how workers can be treated and guidelines that employers must legally follow.

Employment of Minors: Child labor laws were established in the United States in the early 20th Century, but federal agencies note that hundreds of thousands of children are employed as farm workers in this country to this day.

Outside of school, on vacation or during other breaks, children between 14 and 16 are allowed to work.

For minors under 18, they aren't allowed to work more than six straight days or for more than 40 hours in one week/eight hours in a day. They aren't allowed to work before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m., except in a restaurant, supermarket or other retail establishment. The law goes on to list specific examples of jobs that can require extended hours for teen workers.

Farm Labor: The Seasonal Farm Labor Act regulates how seasonal farm workers must be treated and sets up the boundaries for workers.

For instance, a farm workers can't be fired, suspended, demoted, transferred or otherwise penalized for exercising their rights through laws in New Jersey or established by the federal government. Employers, or "crew leaders," as defined by the law, can face fines and other penalties if they violate the law.

Drinking water, toilets and hand washing stations should be furnished in the field for workers.

Apparel Industry: The apparel industry is defined as work regarding sewing, cutting, making, assembling or producing apparel intended to be worn by a consumer and sold at retail shops.

These businesses must be registered with the state and manufacturers and contractors must keep accurate records about employees, including:

• Names and addresses of each production employee and the age of every production employee who is a minor
• The number of hours of work and the time of day work begins and ends for production employees
• The wages, wage rates and piece rates paid during each payroll period
• Contract worksheets indicating the price per unit agree between manufacturer and contractor

Those who violate the terms and conditions of the law can be subjected to fines of up to $4,000 and the company can be subjected to suspension for a period of time. It is good to know that employees throughout New Jersey have specific protections for their industry, but violations still occur. They must be explored by an experienced and aggressive New Jersey Employment Lawyer as soon as possible to protect your rights and to prevent the rights of future employees from being violated. .

Continue reading "Specified New Jersey Workers and Their Rights" »

Despite being in place for years, the Family and Medical Leave Act, commonly referred to as the FMLA, protects employees who take time off for family or medical-related problems. It ensures that employers don't retaliate against employees for taking the time off.

New Jersey Employment Lawyers have seen workers discriminated against and punished for taking time off work, even though state and federal law allow people to take time off from work and still maintain their jobs.

The federal act allows an employee to take off up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid leave during any 12-month period for these reasons:

• Birth and care of a child or placement for adoption or foster care
• Care of an immediate family member
• Care of the employee's own health condition

Here's a Question and Answer session about the New Jersey Family Leave Act of 1993:

Q: How is the 12-month period calculated under FMLA or NJFLA?

Employers may select one of four options for determining the 12-month period:

• the calendar year;
• any fixed 12-month "leave year" such as a fiscal year, a year required by State law, or a year starting on the employee's "anniversary" date;
• the 12-month period measured forward from the date any employee's first family leave begins; or
• a "rolling" 12-month period measured backward from the date an employee uses FMLA or NJFLA leave.

Q: Does workers' compensation leave count against an employee's family or medical leave entitlement?

It can. Family and medical leave and workers' compensation leave can run together, provided the reason for the absence is due to a qualifying serious illness or injury and the employer properly notifies the employee in writing that the leave will be counted as family or medical leave.

Q: If an employer fails to tell employees that the leave is FMLA or NJFLA leave, can the employer count the time they have already been off against the 12 weeks of FMLA or NJFLA leave?

In most situations, the employer cannot count leave as NJFLA or FMLA leave retroactively. Remember, the employee must be notified in writing that an absence is being designated as NJFLA or FMLA leave. If the employer was not aware of the reason for the leave, leave may be designated as NJFLA or FMLA leave retroactively only while the leave is in progress or within two business days of the employee's return to work.

Q: Which employees are eligible to take FMLA and NJFLA leave?

Employees are eligible to take FMLA leave if they have worked for their employer for at least 12 months, have worked for at least 1,000 hours over the previous 12 months, and work at a location with at least 50 employees.

There are additional questions and answers on the State of New Jersey web site regarding FMLA and NJFLA. Discrimination based on aiding one's family or one's own health is unlawful and must be investigated.

Continue reading "Family and Medical Leave Act Provides Protection for New Jersey Workers, but Still Confuses Some" »

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that municipalities that hire from a civil service list have to provide a "legitimate" reason for hiring someone who placed lower in the test ranking, The Star-Ledger reports.

New Jersey Employment Lawyers have seen countless examples of people who were passed over for good jobs simply because of an unqualified person's connections or other unlawful reasons. These situations should be fought aggressively and sometimes litigation is necessary in order to get justice.

In a recent 4-2 decision In the Matter of Nicholas R. Foglio, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed a practice that some experts say gave too much power to hiring authorities who gave vague reasons for bypassing qualified candidates in favor of family members and those with political connections.

The court ruling is based on the case of Foglio, who was skipped over for a firefighter's position in Ocean City in 2007. In hiring firefighters that year, the city picked a bartender and a lifeguard over Foglio, who had eight years of experience as a volunteer fireman and emergency medical technician in several communities.

The city initially cited better educational background as the reason, though Foglio had more firefighter educational training. According to the newspaper, it later said the other two had performed better in interviews, though the city couldn't provide notes or a list of standard questions they asked all candidates. Finally, the city said the other candidates "best met the needs" of the fire department and the Civil Service Commission agreed, as did an appeals court.

But the state's high court said a "boilerplate" reason is insufficient, and the city was obligated to provide the New Jersey Department of Personnel with a statement of "legitimate" reasons why Foglio wasn't selected. The city must now decide whether to give Foglio a "legitimate" reason for why he wasn't hired or must give him a job, his attorney said.

The New Jersey Supreme Court decision is good news for those applying for jobs within a city or town throughout the state. Many times, those hiring civil service employees simply hire less-qualified people as a favor and it undermines the legitimacy of the hiring process. It also is a form of discrimination that shouldn't be tolerated.

Whether based on age, race, gender, sexual orientation, creed or other reasons outlined in New Jersey law, employers aren't allowed to discriminate. And that includes the hiring and firing processes. Potential employees are afforded protections just like people who are already on the payroll.

Hiring a New Jersey Employment Lawyer where a potential employee has been passed over for a job or turned down for a promotion or harassed on the job is critical. These injustices should not go unnoticed and unpunished. Sometimes, litigation can be avoided, but there are times when filing a lawsuit is necessary. Our firm has decades of experience handling these cases and continuously fights for employees' rights.

Continue reading "In the Matter of Nicholas R. Foglio, NJ Supreme Court Rules Towns Must Provide "Legitimate" Reason for Hiring Less-Qualified Candidates" »

Corporate giant 3M came to an agreement recently to pay $3 million to several hundred ex-workers who said the company discriminated based on age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports.

Age discrimination in New Jersey can affect workers and families when employers make decisions about hiring, firing and promotions based on factors other than qualifications and job performance. It can also apply to whether or not a person gets training opportunities, fringe benefits or other benefits of a job.

If you face discrimination on the job and you believe it is based on your age, don't hesitate to contact an experienced New Jersey Employment Lawyer who can assess your situation and determine what action can be taken. Facing discrimination is wrong, but it can happen to anyone, in any profession.

3M may best be known for its Post-It notes, adhesive tape and insulation products. But most recently, it has been known as a company that shuns older workers.

According to the EEOC, the company recently agreed to pay out $3 million to workers older than 45 that it laid off between 2003 and 2006. A lawsuit against the company alleged it fired many high-paid older employees and directed its leaders to train younger workers as replacements.

The EEOC's investigation found an e-mail from the former chief executive that stated the company should be "developing 30-year-olds with General Manager potential."

As part of the settlement, the company will pay out $3 million to 290 former employees and it must provide training to avoid age discrimination by managers and supervisors. There must also be a termination decision process review. The settlement still requires approval by a federal judge.

Two separate lawsuits, filed on behalf of thousands of other employees settled in April for $12 million. Those who benefited under those lawsuits aren't eligible for the EEOC settlement. 3M denies any wrongdoing, but said the company agreed to the settlement to put an end to it incurring any more legal costs.

While most companies would like their younger employees to one day become strong managers who can lead the business in the future, a corporation can't simply terminate hundreds of older employees because they make good salaries after having dedicated decades of their lives to making the business a success.

That shows a systematic choice to discriminate based on age and it cannot be tolerated. Older employees sometimes get a bad reputation for not being willing to use new technology or being unable to adapt to current trends in business, but they can't be denied an opportunity to prove themselves.

Sometimes these injustices require a lawsuit in order to make sure companies comply with the laws of the state and nation, and to compensate workers who have been harmed. New Jersey and New York both have laws which prohibit all forms of discrimination, including age. Workers should be judged based on their skills and not simply on how old they are.

Continue reading "3M Settles Age Bias Claim With $3 Million Check For Employees in New Jersey, Nationwide" »

As the school year starts, many teens will be leaving summer jobs to go back to school. But for many others, they are still seeking employment in order to save for college or pay bills.

The U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics reports unemployment among young people increased by 745,000 between April and July -- the July employment rate was the lowest on record for teens since the agency began keeping track in 1948.

This trend appears to show that adults are taking jobs that teens would be more likely to have as the economy is slow to recover. But it also serves as a warning that parents and teens should be aware of child labor laws in New Jersey.

The youth labor force is classified as people 16 to 24 who are working or actively looking for work. April to July is the time when this segment of the labor force grows sharply because many high school and college students are out of school and graduates are looking for full-time work. It's also legal for 14 and 15 year olds to work under strict guidelines and with careful supervision.

The bureau reports that unemployment among teens grew from 571,000 last year to 745,000 this year.

Perhaps one of the biggest factors why teens were less able to find work this year is that many adults have resorted to taking jobs normally reserved for teenagers. With our state's unemployment at 9.5 percent in July, according to the bureau, many people are scrambling to take any work they can get.

So, the ice cream shops, shoreline hospitality jobs and other work that tends to peak during the summer may have been snatched up by older workers. This can result in teens taking jobs for which they are less suited -- or not reporting dangerous working conditions or other work safety violations for fear of losing a job.

These are adult concerns for sure, since everyone has the right to a safe work environment. But child labor laws have been specifically written to protect our youngest workers. In addition to state child labor laws specific to New York and New Jersey, federal child labor laws include:

-Work limits during school hours.

-Hour limits per day and per week.

-Limits regarding work in manufacturing, mining and processing operations.

-Limits involving the operation of machinery.

-Regulations regarding riding in motor vehicles.

-Loading and unloading rules and regulations.

In general, work options for those ages 14 and 15 are severely limited. While those ages 16 and 17 have more options. There are also any number of regulations involving participation in work-study programs, after-school programs and working in agriculture.

Continue reading "Youth Unemployment in New Jersey, Nationwide On the Rise" »

In the midst of summer, it is important to note that for teenagers, it's the best time of year to find a job. Whether it's picking up shifts at a local retailer or finding work at an ice cream shop along the Jersey Shore, this is the ideal time for young workers out of school.

But while they may be young, they still have rights, just like every other worker. And they can face problems at work, too. Teen work violations in New Jersey must be fought aggressively. New Jersey Employment Lawyers have been fighting workplace discrimination and harassment for decades and believe that everyone should be able to work without added pressures brought on by unlawful practices.

In recent years, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination, teamed up with the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General to educate young workers about the rights they have as employees and how they should and shouldn't be treated. The campaign was also used to educate business owners, to ensure their employees are treated fairly.

One recent case where young employees allegedly faced issues was in Long Island, CBS News reports. The TV station reports a case of three 20-something sisters who have filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against a restaurant where they once worked.

According to the news station, the sisters claim they were routinely subjected to lewd comments and behavior by male co-workers, including a cook who was convicted for groping one of them in 2008. The man was later convicted of attempted sexual abuse and was sentenced to four months in jail, the station reports. The two other sisters say they were routinely touched inappropriately by other workers.

Along with federal protections, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination provides help for employees who face discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex, familial status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for military service and mental or physical disability, perceived disability and AIDS and HIV status, according to the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General.

Sexual harassment means unwanted sexual advances, comments, e-mails, requests for sexual favors or unwelcome touching in the workplace. Workers cannot apply sexual pressure in exchange for increased pay, promotions or other perks. It is against the law.

While jobs are tough to get right now, no one should suffer through discrimination at work in exchange for the promise of keeping a job. Fighting an employer to make things right is important and making sure there is no retaliation is critical, too. Don't allow yourself to be stuck in a frustrating and difficult job situation without at least consulting with a New Jersey Employment Attorney.

Continue reading "Young Workers in New Jersey Have Workplace Rights" »

Unions are a big deal in New York and New Jersey. As the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics points out, in 2010, union members accounted for 24.2 percent of wage and salary workers in New York and 17.1 percent in New Jersey. And that's a drop of 1 percent in New York and 2.2 percent in New Jersey from 2009.

Unions have steadily declined in the last 15 years, the bureau reports. While union membership in both states are at a current low, they were still well above the national rate in 2010. New York's union membership was 1,959,000 in 2010 and in New Jersey, about 637,000 workers belong to a union.

New Jersey Employment Lawyers seek to protect union employees as well as others who aren't protected by unions. Coalitions of workers have helped establish strong benefits, better pay and helped reduce workplace discrimination for years. But as states face budget crises, many officials have begun making difficult cuts, including to unions.

Most will remember how in early 2011, Wisconsin teachers protested at the state capital building after the state's governor sought to cut $900 million from educators. The Hartford Court recently reported that 7,500 state employees in Connecticut could face changes to healthcare and pension benefits and a two-year wage freeze in exchange for four years of no layoffs.

New Jersey's move in June addressed a deep budget crisis when officials realized the state's pension and health plans are underfunded by $110 billion, CBS News reported. So, in response, the state passed a law that requires public employees to begin contributing several thousand dollars more for their benefits. State leaders believe it will be a model for other struggling states.

CBS News cites Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan as other states who have asked public employees to start contributing for their benefits. Florida also passed legislation doing the same.

Collective bargaining agreements are powerful tools that help protect employees from unfair work conditions, a lack of benefits and other perks. But if states or businesses that entered into the agreements don't honor them, employees should seek a New Jersey Employment Lawyer who can straighten these things out.

Sometimes, filing a lawsuit is the best way to resolve the issues, and sometimes the gap can be bridged through other means. But consulting with an experienced and aggressive law firm can be essential to assure the employees are afforded all the rights and benefits that are contractually guaranteed.

According to the bureau of labor statistics, 31 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below the 11.9 percent United States average in 2010. Last year, 19 states had a rate higher than the country's average. In New York, New Jersey, California, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii, the union membership rate was 17 percent or more of the workforce. Southeastern states -- Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana -- had the lowest union membership rates, at 4.9 percent or less.

Continue reading "New Jersey Cuts Benefits to Union Workers, Other States Follow" »

The Jersey Journal recently reported about a lawsuit filed by five Hispanic police officers formerly on the Hoboken SWAT team. The suit was settled with a $2 million payout.

It's sad to see, but discrimination based on race still exists today. There are state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on age, race, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and many other factors, yet employers continue to make hiring and firing decisions based on factors outside a person's control, such as their race or family history.

New Jersey Employment Lawyers seek to ensure all employees are treated fairly and are employed based on their talents, skills, education and qualifications and not based on their skin tone, age or gender.

In this case, the five officers filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the city in 2007, alleging they were subjected to racial slurs and racially motivated mistreatment. Some of the incidents allegedly occurred during two trips to Louisiana to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

After complaining about the treatment, the officers alleged that officials with the police department retaliated against them.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claims of racial discrimination are among the chief complaints that workers make to the agency, which is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against an employee or job applicant.

In 2010, there were 99,922 charges of workplace discrimination and of them, 35,890 were noted to be related to a person's race. In the last 10 years, race discrimination claims have increased:

• 2010: 35,890
• 2009: 33,579
• 2008: 33,937
• 2007: 30,510
• 2006: 27,238
• 2005: 26,740
• 2004: 27,696
• 2003: 28,526
• 2002: 29,910
• 2001: 28,912
• 2000: 28,945

That is a 24 percent increase in just a decade. It's unclear whether this means there are far more instances of racial discrimination in the last decade or whether people are more likely to make reports -- legitimate or not.

But this story and others like it show that racial discrimination still exists in the workplace throughout New Jersey and the United States. In 2010, more than 3,300 race-based claims of discrimination were settled and monetary benefits totaled $84.4 million, up from $82.4 million in 2009. Benefits totaled $61.7 million in 2000.

More than 26,000 claims were found to have no reasonable cause in 2010, while the agency found that another 1,300 did have reasonable cause to continue.

In this tough economy, brought on by the Great Recession, many people are thrilled just to have a job. But if a worker faces discrimination on the job or in applying for a job, it is unacceptable and unlawful. Some people will simply take the abuse the unlawful treatment in exchange for having a job. Employers sometimes use the threat of unemployment and bleak job prospects as a way to treat workers unfairly.

These injustices should be fought and consulting with a New Jersey Employment Lawyer is the first step.

Continue reading "New Jersey Police Race Discrimination Lawsuit Settled" »

In a staggering decision, the US Supreme Court ruled this week in the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. vs Dukes, et al., that a class action on behalf of approximately 1.5 million current and former female employees of Walmart could not move forward under the class certification rules set forth under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case, which was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleged that local managers at Walmart's hundreds of stores exercised discretion over pay and promotions disproportionately in favor of male employees. However, five Justices determined that only where there was a "general policy of discrimination" could a single employee's discrimination claim and a class of persons who have suffered the same injury be bridged, in order to support such a substantial class of employees.

The only evidence which the Court referred to as supportive of a "general policy of discrimnation" was a sociologist's analysis stating that Walmart's corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias. However the Court held that since the expert could not estimate what portion of the Wal-Mart's decisions were based upon discriminatory thinking, there was an absence of 'siginificant proof' that the company operated under a general policy of discrimination.

Though there were strong dissents in the opinion, it appears that for now such large class actions will need to concentrate more on evidence of widespread discrimination, rather than the sheer volume of persons making similar allegations.

New York lawmakers recently introduced legislation that would make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against unemployed job seekers, Reuters reports.

New Jersey Employment Lawyers understand how difficult it can be to find work right now. Millions of Americans are searching job postings, sending out resumes and hoping for callbacks to get back on their feet. And it's tragic when companies decide not to hire someone just because they've been out of work, the result of which may not even be their fault. Unfortunately, its not against the law. Disqualifying an employee for other reasons -- including sex, age or race -- is illegal and should be handled by a discrimination attorney in New Jersey.

The article says the bill would make the unemployed a protected class under New York law, which would give them the same status as other groups, such as the physically disabled. It would also make it illegal to post job openings and openly discourage unemployed applicants.

This type of discrimination contributes to the increased problem of long-term unemployment, lawmakers said. The New York State Department of Labor reports the unemployment rate was 7.9 percent in April, down almost 1 percent from April 2010.

New York is catching up to New Jersey, which was the first state to ban a form of unemployment discrimination by pushing through a bill that made it illegal for companies to require their applicants be employed. It took effect on June 1. There is no federal statute banning employment discrimination, but a Democratic Representative from Georgia recently introduced the Fair Employment Act, which would prohibit hiring practices based on the unemployed.

All this is good news for job seekers. But while these are improvements to the law, it may not protect you at your job. Employers aren't always legally required to treat their employees fairly, unless the discrimination is based on religion, race, age, gender physical condition, sexual orientation, national origin, veteran or military status or other legally protected class.

Continue reading "Bill Would Ban Unemployment Discrimination in New York" »

IF you need time off work because of the birth of a child, death in the family, adoption proceedings or other eligible reason, your company can't discriminate against you, the New Jersey Family Leave Act says.

If your company is giving you problems because you had to take time off work for a family emergency, you may have been unfairly discriminated against based on the New Jersey Family Leave Act. If so, contact New Jersey Employment Lawyers immediately. There is also protection for employees under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

New Jersey's law requires covered employers to give employees time off from work in certain situations:

• Birth of a Child


• Adoption of a Child


• Serious illness of a parent, child or spouse

Employers with 50 or more employees anywhere in the world are required to follow the law for New Jersey employees. The law requires employees to be at work for at least 12 months at the job and work 1,000 hours in a 12-month time frame to be eligible. If those conditions are met, the employee's job is protected for up to 12 weeks of leave in a two-year period.

The main difference between the New Jersey Leave Act and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, is the ability of an employee under the federal law to take leave for his or her own medical condition. Also, while the duration and the timing of the leave under the state law is 12 weeks in any 24 month period, under the federal law the leave permitted is 12 weeks during any 12 month period.

Under both acts, the time off is unpaid, unless the company has a specific policy paying employees for the time off. But the New Jersey law also provides some exceptions. For instance, employers can deny leave to employees whose base salaries are in the highest top 5 percent of all employees or if they are among the seven highest paid employees if their absence would have a substantial negative effect on the business.

Because these can be complicated issues, they require an experienced New Jersey employment law attorney. Don't hesitate to call so we can put our knowledge to work for you.

Continue reading "New Jersey Laws Prohibit Discrimination Based on Family Leave" »

New Jersey Employment Lawyers are proud of our country's armed forces and veterans who have put their lives at risk for our safety and liberty.

And that's why we fight so hard to protect our military veterans who are discriminated against when they apply for jobs or while they are employed. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination prevents companies from unfairly discriminating against members of the armed forces.

The law states employers can't give preferential treatment to other employees over you in hiring or by giving different terms of employment based on membership in the Armed Services. However, the law doesn't prohibit a company from not hiring a member of the military who has already received orders to report for active duty. Federal law may vary, however.

The Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act is a federal law that is intended to ensure those who serve or have served in the military are not disadvantaged in their civilian careers, are reemployed without delay once returning from duty and aren't discriminated against as a result of their service.

This protection applies to members of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard or Air National Guard. If you are living in New Jersey or New York and you feel a company or your employer is treating you unfairly compared to coworkers, please call. We have been protecting the rights of our military members for nearly 30 years.

The Family & Medical Leave Act, commonly applies to people taking time off for births, deaths and illnesses in the family. But the act can also apply to the military who are called into active duty. Some examples of how the act can apply to military members is if you're deployed with a week or less of notice, if you're required to participate in military related activities and if you have to attend counseling that is needed because of your active duty.

These laws are lengthy and complex, so if you feel you have been discriminated against because of your service, call for a consultation. We will help you determine the best course of action to protect your rights.

Continue reading "New Jersey Employment Law Protects Veterans" »