Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

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

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

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

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

Service in the U.S. military and other uniformed services can mean a great deal of uncertainty. People who serve in the National Guard or Armed Forces Reserves have training obligations and may find themselves called to active duty. This can cause difficulties with employment in both the private sector and non-military government jobs. New Jersey employment law prohibits employers from discriminating based on military service obligations, but its protections only cover mandatory service in the Armed Forces. Federal law goes further by addressing servicemembers’ ability to return to their jobs after their service ends. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) turns thirty this year, having become law in October 1994. It offers important protections for New Jersey servicemembers.

Who Does USERRA Cover?

USERRA applies broadly to people on active or inactive duty in any of the uniformed services of the United States. This includes the six branches of the Armed Forces: the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force. It also includes the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Surgeon General, for example, is an officer with the Public Health Service.

In contrast, New Jersey’s antidiscrimination law only applies to mandatory active duty service in the Armed Forces. This includes service in a National Guard or Reserve unit and induction through a draft.
Continue reading

When applying New Jersey employment laws dealing with discrimination, courts have long held that plaintiffs must prove that they suffered actual harm. This might involve the loss of a job, lower wages, or the loss of other benefits or features of employment. Many courts around the country have applied similar interpretations to laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court could change how courts in New Jersey and nationwide interpret these laws. A police sergeant alleges that her employer discriminated against her based on sex by transferring her to a different position. The lower courts found that she had not established that an “adverse employment action” had occurred. A ruling in her favor could help plaintiffs prove unlawful discrimination in cases where the discrimination did not cause them to suffer major disadvantages.

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on several categories, including sex. Section 703(a)(1) of the statute addresses unlawful practices by employers. While it identifies several specific adverse actions, such as firing someone or refusing to hire them, it also includes a catch-all category that simply states employers may not “otherwise…discriminate” against employees or job applicants because of sex or other protected categories.

The plain language of § 703(a)(1) does not necessarily require proof that a discriminatory act had a negative impact. This might affect the amount of damages a plaintiff could receive, but under this view, it would not affect whether or not they could assert a claim. Most courts, however, have taken the view that some employment discrimination claims require proof that a plaintiff suffered tangible harm.
Continue reading