Discrimination

August 23, 2024

New Jersey Court Rejects Employee’s FMLA Claim

If you believe you’ve been unfairly treated at work, particularly if you’ve been denied leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or retaliated against for requesting it, the Resnick Law Group is here to help. Understanding your rights under the FMLA is crucial, and if those rights are violated, you may have grounds for legal action.

In a recent case, an employee claimed her employer violated the FMLA in two ways: first, by denying her request for FMLA leave, and second, by retaliating against her for attempting to take that leave. She alleged that her employer intensified a hostile work environment, increased harassment, and reassigned her to roles for which she was unqualified. Unfortunately, the court found her claims too vague and inconsistent to proceed.

The FMLA is designed to help employees balance work with personal or family needs, allowing them to take reasonable leave for serious medical conditions without fear of losing their jobs. The law sets clear expectations for employers, ensuring that eligible employees can take up to 12 weeks of leave within a year. After this leave, the employee must be reinstated to their original job or a comparable one with the same pay, benefits, and working conditions.

However, the FMLA doesn’t just grant leave—it also protects employees from retaliation for using it. This means your employer can’t treat you negatively, such as by demoting you or increasing your workload unfairly, just because you took or requested FMLA leave.

August 16, 2024

Federal Court Weighs in on Employee’s Discrimination Case Based on COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employers have an affirmative duty to respect workers’ rights. However, due to various pressures and biases, employers often fail to live up to their duty. If you feel that your rights as an employee have been violated, particularly if you’ve faced discrimination or unfair treatment related to COVID-19 policies, the recent case of Srilatha Kuntumalla vs. Bristol Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) may provide you with the guidance you’re looking for.

The Facts of the Case

In this case, Srilatha Kuntumalla, along with several other employees, filed a lawsuit against BMS after being terminated for refusing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Kuntumalla and her co-plaintiffs argued that BMS did not follow its own exemption policies and that their terminations were a result of the company’s failure to accommodate their religious beliefs and medical concerns regarding the vaccine.

August 8, 2024

Third Circuit Holds Job Applicant’s Discrimination Case Was Improperly Dismissed

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Most New Jersey workers know that state and federal employment laws protect them from illegal discrimination. However, what fewer people know is that these very same laws also provide protection to job applications; that is, individuals who applied for an open position but were not selected for employment.

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an opinion in an age and disability discrimination case that highlights this longstanding principle. In the case, Porter v. Merakey, the court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of Porter’s claims, finding that the lower court applied incorrect legal principles.

The Facts of the Case

Porter had previously suffered an injury to his leg, which caused him to walk with a limp and required that he stretch his leg out straight while sitting. Eight years after his injury, at the age of 66, Porter applied for an open position at Merakey, a provider of behavioral health services. He met the minimum requirements for the job and was invited to interview for the position.

July 26, 2024

Federal Court Dismisses Attempt to Stop New EEOC Rule

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A new rule from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeks to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), but it has faced opposition. The PWFA fills an important gap in federal pregnancy discrimination law. New Jersey employment law has long required employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers who are pregnant, have recently given birth, or are dealing with medical conditions related to either pregnancy or childbirth. Federal law did not have this requirement, except for a possible interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The PWFA expressly requires reasonable accommodations in these circumstances. Several state attorneys general filed suit against the EEOC to blog the new PWFA rule based on the EEOC’s inclusion of abortion and related services. A federal court dismissed the lawsuit in June 2024, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. That lawsuit, however, is not the only challenge to the rule.

The PWFA took effect on June 27, 2023. The EEOC published its rule implementing the PWFA in the Federal Register on April 19, 2024. The rule broadly interprets the PWFA’s requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodations based on “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” It is similar to the ADA’s reasonable accommodations process, with some important differences. The rule places a fairly heavy burden on employers to accommodate workers’ needs.

Seventeen state attorneys general filed suit against the EEOC on April 25. They sought an injunction preventing the PWFA rule from taking effect. Much of their objections stemmed from the inclusion of abortion in the rule’s definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The rule would require employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees who have the procedure or are dealing with complications related to the procedure.
Continue reading

June 28, 2024

EEOC Settles Lawsuits Against New Jersey Employers Over Title VII Data Collection

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Federal and New Jersey employment laws protect workers from discrimination on the basis of factors like race, sex, and religion. State law includes more protected categories than federal law, but both statutes give rather broad authority to government agencies to investigate alleged unlawful practices by employers. At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to pursue enforcement actions directly or give employees approval to file civil lawsuits. The statute directs certain employers to file reports with the EEOC containing demographic data about their employees. The agency recently filed lawsuits against at least fifteen employers, including two in New Jersey, for failing to file these reports on time. It settled both New Jersey lawsuits within a few weeks of filing.

Section 709(c) of Title VII and EEOC regulations require employers with one hundred or more employees to file annual reports regarding the gender and race/ethnicity of their workforces. The EEOC states that it uses the data in these reports to assist in enforcement and research activities.

The EEOC does not require employers to keep records in any specific form. It does, however, require covered employers to use a form known as the EEO-1 Component 1 data report to submit demographic information. EEOC regulations note that employers’ recordkeeping practices should comply with other state and federal laws regarding discrimination and employee privacy.
Continue reading

June 7, 2024

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules That Broad Non-Disparagement Agreements Are Against State Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employers often use contractual provisions to prohibit employees from disclosing information about discrimination and harassment claims. Non-disclosure clauses can bar employees from revealing information about legal disputes. Non-disparagement provisions often have a much broader scope, prohibiting negative statements about the other party. These provisions may prevent employees from warning others about their experiences. A New Jersey employment law enacted in 2019, known as the “#MeToo law,” bans non-disclosure agreements in employment contracts and settlements involving harassment, discrimination, or retaliation claims. In May 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that non-disparagement agreements also violate this law.

New Jersey law does not specifically define a “non-disparagement agreement.” The New Jersey Supreme Court relied on Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines it as “an agreement…that prohibits criticism by one party on the other.” Non-disparagement agreements might specifically prohibit “defamatory” information, which by definition means that information is untrue. They may also use more generic terms like “harmful to the parties’ business” or “harmful to their business or personal reputation.” Clauses that use this kind of language can bar people from making truthful statements that describe harmful experiences.

The New Jersey Legislature enacted the #MeToo law in the wake of the movement that seeks, in part, to raise awareness of sexual harassment and abuse in workplaces around the world. The law bans non-disclosure agreements in employment contracts and settlement agreements that would prevent people from speaking out about certain violations of antidiscrimination laws. The New Jersey Supreme Court states in its ruling that the law “was enacted in the wake of the ‘#MeToo’ movement to protect individuals who suffer sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination from being silenced by settlement agreements and employment contracts.”
Continue reading

May 29, 2024

How a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Title VII Discrimination Claims

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in April 2024 that addresses an important question about what plaintiffs must prove in employment discrimination claims. Federal and New Jersey employment laws do not expressly state that a plaintiff alleging discrimination must prove that they suffered significant harm. Many courts, however, have interpreted antidiscrimination laws as requiring this kind of proof. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis overturned multiple lower court precedents applying this interpretation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It held that a discriminatory job transfer is unlawful even without evidence of a “materially significant disadvantage.”

Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII deals with unlawful employment discrimination. It mentions acts like “fail[ing[ or refus[ing] to hire” a person and “limit[ing], segregat[ing], or classify[ing]” employees in discriminatory ways. It does not specifically state that a discriminatory employment action must cause harm to the person experiencing the discrimination. Before Muldrow, many courts had interpreted this provision as requiring proof of harm in at least some cases. This includes courts in New Jersey.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Title VII discrimination claims involving “adverse employment actions” require proof of a “cognizable injury.” The injury must be serious enough to alter the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” In the 1997 decision establishing this rule, the court held that “unnecessary derogatory comments” made toward the plaintiff did not rise to this level. Refusal to recommend the plaintiff for a promotion based on discriminatory grounds, however, would meet the standard. Muldrow may overturn the Third Circuit’s rule.
Continue reading

May 10, 2024

New Jersey Jury Awards $1 Million in National Origin Discrimination Lawsuit

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Discrimination based on a person’s national origin violates New Jersey employment laws. This includes discrimination in decisions related to hiring, promotions, job duties, benefits, firing, and other features of employment. It also includes harassment based on national origin, such as when unwelcome remarks, jokes, slurs, or other conduct creates a hostile work environment. Employers may not retaliate against an employee who reports or opposes national origin discrimination in the workplace. A lawsuit went to trial earlier this year in which a plaintiff alleged national origin discrimination based on her accent. In early March, a jury in an Essex County Superior Court awarded her $1 million in damages.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) prohibits employment discrimination based on numerous factors, including national origin, ancestry, race, and color. This includes both actual and perceived national origin, as well as stereotypes about one’s national origin. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces federal anti-discrimination law, states that the following may constitute unlawful national origin discrimination:
– Discrimination based on a person’s accent when their manner of speech does not interfere with their job;
– Language fluency requirements that are not reasonably related to the job; and
– English-only rules that are not necessary for workplace safety or efficiency.

The plaintiff in the Essex County lawsuit was born and raised in Romania. According to her complaint, she and her husband immigrated to the United States in 2000 and became naturalized citizens in 2005. She states that she began studying English in the second grade. She obtained a master’s degree from a New Jersey school, with all instruction taking place in English. She states that she began working for the defendant in 2012 and that her employment went well for several years.
Continue reading

May 3, 2024

New Jersey Bills Would Regulate the Use of AI in Employment Decisions

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employers have begun relying on various artificial intelligence (AI) tools to streamline the hiring process and other aspects of the employment relationship. While the marketing for these tools sometimes claims that they can perform certain tasks better than humans, experience demonstrates that they are not free of many human biases. Humans programmed the AIs, after all, and may have included their own biases in the code. Two pending bills would amend New Jersey employment law to regulate the use of these tools in the hiring process. One would require “bias audits” of AI-based analytical tools. The other bill deals specifically with AI tools that analyze video interviews of job applicants.

The Use of AI in Hiring

The term “artificial intelligence” can refer to several types of software applications. Generative AI, for example, can create written or visual works based on user prompts. Employers use analytical AI tools to go through large amounts of data and make recommendations or decisions. For example, an AI system could screen job applicants based on whatever factors employers choose. This is the source of much of the concern about AI in employment decisions. Employers are ultimately liable for bias in an AI tool’s algorithm.

Automated Employment Decision Tools

A3854, introduced in the New Jersey Assembly on February 22, 2024, would regulate companies that produce and sell “automated employment decision tools” (AEDTs), as well as the employers that use them. The bill defines an AEDT as a system that uses statistical theory or a learning algorithm to filter job applicants or employees in a way that “establishes a preferred candidate or candidates.” Any AI system that screens job applicants would fit this definition.
Continue reading

April 16, 2024

Proposed Regulations Would Target Salary History Discrimination by Federal Contractors

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey employment law prohibits employers from screening job applicants based on their salary history. Employers also may not require applicants to provide salary history information. The law helps job seekers overcome historical disparities in pay. It requires employers to base new hires’ pay on the market rate for their labor rather than their previous salary or wages. The law includes an exception for situations where a federal law or regulation requires job applicants to disclose salary history, or employers to verify that information. This exception might not be an issue much longer for many situations governed by federal law. In January 2024, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council published proposed regulations in the Federal Register that would prohibit federal contractors from asking job applicants for salary information or using salary history to screen applicants.

A 2019 New Jersey law addresses how employers may use salary history during the hiring process. Employers may not require applicants to provide information about past wages or salary. They may not use that information in hiring decisions. If, however, an applicant provides such information voluntarily, “without employer prompting or coercion,” the employer may consider that information when determining that individual’s “salary, benefits, and other compensation.”

Employers who violate the 2019 law may face civil penalties, payable to the state, that start at $1,000 for a first violation. A second violation carries a $5,000 fine, and a third may result in a $10,000 fine. If a job applicant is part of a protected group under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, they may also have the right to sue for violations of the salary history law.
Continue reading