The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

October 20, 2015

Second Circuit Adopts Broad Definition of “Whistleblower” in Dodd-Frank Retaliation Lawsuit

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes New York City, issued a ruling in September 2015 that takes a broad view of whistleblower protections under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”). Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy LLC, et al, No. 14-4626, slip op. (2d Cir., Sep. 10, 2015). Dodd-Frank protects individuals who report possible securities law violations from retaliation by their employers, but its definition of a whistleblower is ambiguous. The court resolved the ambiguity in favor of the employee. The ruling conflicts with a ruling from another circuit court, see Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013), so the U.S. Supreme Court may have to weigh in at some point in the future.

Dodd-Frank created a “Whistleblower Program,” administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which provides incentives for individuals who report suspected violations of federal securities law. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6. The law also states that an employer may not retaliate against an employee who makes a report. Id. at § 78u-6(h)(1).

Most statutes that prohibit retaliation in this manner address both internal reporting, such as to a compliance officer or human resources department, and external reporting, such as to a regulatory or law enforcement agency. Dodd-Frank, however, defines a “whistleblower” as “any individual who provides…information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the [SEC]…” Id. at § 78u-6(a)(6). Given its plain meaning, the statute leaves people who report internally unprotected. This was the issue presented to the Second Circuit in Berman.
Continue reading

October 15, 2015

NLRB Issues Important Ruling Regarding “Joint Employers”

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., protects the rights of private-sector workers to organize into unions, to engage in collective bargaining, and to take collective action when needed. The law generally provides workers with a cause of action against their employers for violations of the NLRA. Employees of companies that are franchisees of a much larger company, or that are under contract with another company, may find their rights under the NLRA limited because of how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has interpreted the word “employer” in recent years. In August 2015, the NLRB ruled that a company and its subcontractor were “joint employers” of the subcontractor’s employees for purposes of the NLRA. Browning-Ferris Industries of Cal., Inc., et al. (“Browning-Ferris II“), 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015).

The NLRB held in its recent ruling that it had established a general standard for joint employment over 30 years ago, based on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pa., Inc. (“Browning-Ferris I“), 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982). The central question is whether the two companies “share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.” Id. at 1123. Since 1982, the NLRB has “imposed additional requirements for finding joint-employer status” that, according to the NLRB, have no legal basis or justification. Browning-Ferris II at 1.

The respondents in the present case are a waste management company (WMC) and a staffing company (SC). The WMC operates a recycling facility that receives about 1,200 tons of material per day that must be sorted into waste, recyclable material, and usable commodities. It directly employs about 60 people, most of whom work outside the facility and who already have union representation. The SC, under a contract with the WMC, provides about 240 workers to work in the plant itself. The contract states that the workers are solely the employees of the SC. The union is seeking to represent these workers.
Continue reading

October 9, 2015

Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Claims Defendant Refused to Hire Plaintiff Because of Plaintiff’s Disabled Son

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A federal lawsuit brought by a job applicant against a hotel and its owner claims unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability. Anderson v. HotelsAB, LLC, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00712, complaint (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2015). The plaintiff alleges that the hotel owner stated during her job interview that he would not hire her because she has a disabled son. Her complaint alleges a single cause of action for employment discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. It names the two limited liability companies (LLCs) that own and operate the hotel, as well as the individual owner of the LLCs, as defendants. In late August 2015, a judge denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case.

The plaintiff applied for a job as controller for the defendants, which own and operate a hotel located on Shelter Island, near the eastern end of Long Island. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the job would involve working from the defendants’ Manhattan office from October through April, and at the hotel on Shelter Island from May through September. The plaintiff lived in Connecticut at the time she applied for the job.

After several telephone interviews, the plaintiff visited the hotel in August 2014 for an in-person interview with several hotel officers. The hotel owner arrived to meet her and allegedly began “posing extremely personal questions” about her marriage and living arrangement and repeatedly calling her a “crazy person.” Anderson, complaint at 5. When asked about her “ideal job,” the plaintiff states that she mentioned running a nursing home because of her disabled son, who lives in Maine. She alleges that the owner “abruptly ended the interview” at this point, telling her that she could not “devote adequate time to her professional responsibilities.” Id.
Continue reading

September 25, 2015

Unpaid Intern Sues Celebrity Twins Under State Wage and Hour Laws

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A former intern for the company founded by Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, commonly known as the Olsen Twins, has filed a putative class action against the company in a Manhattan state court. Lalani v. Dualstar Entm’t Group, LLC, No. 158205/2015, complaint (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co., Aug. 7, 2015). The lawsuit alleges that the company unlawfully classified workers as interns and therefore did not pay them any wages. It asserts causes of action under state minimum wage law. People employed as interns often forego wages in favor of academic credit or specific job training. Courts are beginning to enforce the right of interns to be treated as paid employees if they are not receiving an educational benefit from the job. See, e.g. Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, No. 1:11-cv-06784, mem. order (S.D.N.Y., Jun. 11, 2013) (finding that production interns on the film Black Swan were entitled to compensation).

The Olsen Twins first became famous by jointly playing the character Michelle Tanner on the ABC sitcom Full House from 1987, when they were barely one year old, until 1995. They reportedly founded Dualstar, the defendant in the present case, at age six in 1993. Since then, they have built a massive business that includes films, clothing, and other products, and that is valued at around $1 billion.

According to her complaint, the lead plaintiff worked for the defendant from May through September 2012. Her job duties included office administrative tasks and support of paid employees. She claims that she worked five days a week for approximately 50 hours each week and received no compensation for the work she performed. She also received no “academic or vocational training” through her work for the defendant. Lalani, complaint at 5.
Continue reading

September 18, 2015

The Americans with Disabilities Act, Which Protects New Jersey Workers Against Employment Discrimination, Turns 25

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The ADA helps ensure that people with disabilities have access to public buildings, public transportation, and private businesses considered “public accommodations.” It also protects disabled workers against discrimination and requires employers to provide them with reasonable accommodations. The difficulty tends to come in the applicability of the ADA’s definition of “disabled” to a particular worker, or the reasonableness of a requested accommodation under its specific circumstances. It is worth taking a moment to review the ADA and the ways it has been interpreted and adapted over the years.

In numerous ways, the ADA has literally changed the landscape of the country. Title II of the ADA requires government buildings and public transportation to allow access by disabled individuals. This might include wheelchair ramps, elevators, or assistance for people with impaired vision or hearing. Title III establishes similar requirements for “public accommodations”–private businesses that offer products or services to the general public, such as hotels, restaurants, theaters, grocery stores, gas stations, bus depots, libraries, parks, schools, day care centers, and golf courses. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Title IV requires telecommunications service providers to make services available to people with hearing and speech impairments. 47 U.S.C. § 225.

Title I of the ADA prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. It also requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabled workers. Title V includes a prohibition on retaliation for asserting rights under any of the ADA’s provisions. Congress has added to the ADA’s protections with subsequent laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which both became law in 2008.
Continue reading

September 11, 2015

More than $7 Million in Back Pay Owed to New Jersey Workers from Federal Wage and Hour Law Enforcement Remains Unclaimed

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Workers in New Jersey have several methods of asserting their rights under federal, state, and local employment laws. While retaining the services of an employment law attorney offers an individual the best opportunity to work with an experienced professional through all of the steps of the legal process, certain government agencies sometimes pursue civil claims against employers on employees’ behalf. The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently announced that it is holding a substantial sum of money obtained in enforcement actions against employers around the country, including more than $7 million owed to nearly 10,000 New Jersey workers that remains unclaimed.

The DOL’s regional office in Philadelphia announced in mid-August 2015 that the WHD is holding $7,157,792 obtained from New Jersey private-sector employers, mostly through settlement agreements. This money constitutes back pay owed to 9,953 employees. The WHD and other agencies are often able to notify workers of the availability of money obtained through an enforcement action. If an individual has moved out of state, changed their name through marriage, or even just switched jobs, however, the agency may not be able to locate them.

A website maintained by the DOL entitled “Workers Owed Wages,” or simply “WOW,” includes a search function that allows workers to see if the DOL has collected money from their employer. They may then search their own name to see if they are entitled to payment. The site has reportedly helped people around the country claim over $800,000–a small amount in comparison to the amount that remains unclaimed in New Jersey alone. If money remains unclaimed for three years after collection, the U.S. Treasury can keep it.
Continue reading

September 4, 2015

New Jersey Judge Awards Attorney’s Fees and Costs to Plaintiff in Medical Leave Lawsuit

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A federal judge in New Jersey recently awarded $274,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiff in a lawsuit related to an employee’s request for medical leave. Boles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01762, opinion (D.N.J., Aug. 6, 2015). A jury found for the plaintiff in March 2015 on his claim of retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12. It awarded him compensatory and punitive damages totaling $200,000. When the court entered the order for attorney’s fees and costs, it also denied the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).

The plaintiff began working at a retail store owned and operated by the defendant in Linden, New Jersey in 2001. He received various promotions over the years, eventually becoming an overnight assistant manager in early 2011. The plaintiff sought medical attention for a blister on his leg in May 2011. This became an ulceration, which can be dangerous because of the risk of infection. His doctor recommended that he take medical leave until November, but the defendant reportedly only approved leave through late September. The plaintiff was not able to return to work by then and requested an extension of his leave. He tried to return to work in late October 2011, but the defendant would not allow him to do so. It terminated him shortly afterwards for abandoning his job.

In March 2012, the plaintiff filed suit under the NJLAD and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. He asserted four causes of action: retaliation for requesting medical leave, disability discrimination, and failure to accommodate, all in violation of the NJLAD; and interference with his rights under the FMLA. In March 2014, the court partially granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the disability discrimination claim and part of the failure to accommodate claim. It denied the motion as to the claims for retaliation and FMLA interference, and partly as to the failure to accommodate claim. The case went to jury trial in March 2015.
Continue reading

August 27, 2015

New Federal Regulation Requires Businesses to Disclose CEO-to-Employee Pay Ratios

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The wage gap has become a matter of serious concern for many in this country. Various reports show income rising for many business executives, while wages stagnate, or even decline, for most working people. Employment statutes at the federal, state, and local levels protect workers against a wide range of untenable employment situations and unjust acts by employers, but this does not include a wide disparity in pay between a company’s low-level employees and its chief executive officer (CEO). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule in early August 2015 requiring publicly traded companies to disclose the ratio between CEO salary and median employee compensation. This rule implements a provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank), Pub. L. 111-203, but it has been the subject of substantial criticism from the business sector. It might not have an immediate impact on improving employees’ workplace rights, but it could be an important step in that direction.

Employees in New Jersey are generally protected from workplace discrimination and harassment, based on factors such as race, sex, religion, and national origin, by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-1 et seq., and Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The NJLAD includes additional categories of protection, such as sexual orientation and gender identity. The New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), N.J. Rev. Stat. § 34:11-56a et seq., sets a statewide minimum wage and establishes rules for overtime compensation. At the federal level, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., performs a similar function, albeit with a lower minimum wage.

These laws could work together to protect employees in a situation where certain employees receive lower pay than other employees with the same or similar qualifications, performing the same or a similar job, if the disparity is related to one or more of the categories protected from discrimination. Nothing in state or federal law says that a CEO’s pay cannot be higher than an employee’s pay, and despite some particularly heated political rhetoric, no one is suggesting a rule like that. The issue is that many workers put in 40 or more hours of work per week, and yet they struggle to make ends meet, even frugally. The SEC’s regulation does not directly address this issue, nor issues of employee wage complaints, but it helps put these issues closer to the front burner, so to speak.
Continue reading

August 24, 2015

Plaintiffs in Genetic Information Discrimination Case Obtain $2.2 Million Verdict Against Employer

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff et seq., protects employees from privacy violations and discrimination in employment based on information obtained through DNA tests and other procedures. It also prohibits employers from requiring employees to submit DNA samples, with narrowly defined exceptions. Some states have similar laws, such as New Jersey’s Genetic Privacy Act of 1996, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-43 et seq., which amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to prohibit employment discrimination based on “genetic information,” N.J.S.A. § 10:5-12(a). Few court decisions have considered the scope of these laws’ protections, however. A recent court decision and jury verdict, however, in Lowe, et al v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Svcs. (Atlanta), LLC, No. 1:13-v-02425, complaint (N.D. Ga., Jul. 22, 2013), suggests that these laws could provide an very effective defense against discrimination and employer intrusions into employee privacy.

Congress enacted GINA in 2008, so the statute has not amassed much of a track record in the court system. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has brought suit under GINA in several cases around the country for a wide range of practices:

– In EEOC v. Fabricut, Inc., the EEOC alleged that an employer violated GINA by allegedly refusing to hire a job applicant it thought had carpal tunnel syndrome, and by asking for her medical history. The employer settled the suit for $50,000.
– A class discrimination suit against a New York nursing home, EEOC v. Founders Pavilion, Inc., claimed that the employer unlawfully requested genetic information from job applicants. The defendant settled for $370,000. A lawsuit against another New York nursing home with similar allegations, EEOC v. BNV Home Care Agency, is still pending.
– A lawsuit against several seed and fertilizer companies for alleged medical and genetic information inquiries during the hiring process, EEOC v. All Star Seed, Inc., et al., resulted in a $187,500 settlement.
Continue reading

August 14, 2015

EEOC Rules that Title VII Already Prohibits Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, at Least in Some Cases

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals remain uncertain in many parts of the country, despite recent court victories. Fewer than half of U.S. states prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation (the “LGB” part of the acronym) or gender identity (the “T” part). The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) expressly prohibits both types of discrimination, but Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only protects people from discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. A recent decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), however, held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination already covers sexual orientation discrimination. Baldwin v. Dept. of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080 (Jul. 15, 2015) (PDF file). A 2012 decision, Macy v. Dept. of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (Apr. 20, 2012), held that this part of Title VII covers gender identity. These decisions only apply to federal employees, but they are still an important step forward. Most employment discrimination claims still require a careful analysis of federal, state, and city laws.

The complainant in the recent EEOC decision claimed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) discriminated against him on the basis of his status as a gay man when it denied him a particular promotion, citing negative remarks allegedly made by his supervisor. The FAA dismissed his complaint as untimely, and he appealed to the EEOC. After finding that the complaint was timely, the EEOC ruled that the important question in a sexual orientation discrimination claim is not “whether sexual orientation is explicitly listed in Title VII as a prohibited basis for employment actions,” but “whether the agency has ‘relied on sex-based considerations’ or ‘take[n] gender into account’ when taking the challenged employment action.” Baldwin at 5-6, quoting Macy at 6. See also Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

The EEOC’s decisions in both Baldwin and Macy, interestingly, relied rather heavily on a Supreme Court decision written by Justice Scalia, who is not known for his support of expanded legal protections for LGBT individuals. The Supreme Court ruled in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), that a male oil-rig worker could sue for sexual harassment by male co-workers. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Scalia stated that “statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil [they were passed to combat] to cover reasonably comparable evils.” Baldwin at 13, quoting Oncale, 523 U.S. at 79.
Continue reading