The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

November 1, 2013

New Law Protects Social Media Account Privacy for New Jersey Workers and Job Applicants

Increasingly, Americans are utilizing social media accounts like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, and more both on and off the job. In recent years, a growing number of employers have reportedly asked workers and job applicants for access to their personal social media accounts as a condition of employment. In response to this practice, Governor Chris Christie recently signed into law a bill that prohibits New Jersey employers from requesting access to the personal social media accounts of workers or job candidates.

Companies who violate the new social media law will be subject to a $1,000 fine for the first offense and a $2,500 fine for each additional offense. The measure also allows employees and applicants the option to seek financial compensation for lost earnings from an employer who violates the law. Additionally, employers may not require a job candidate to waive any of the protections of the law as a condition of hiring, and they may not retaliate against a worker for exercising any rights guaranteed by the legislation.

The measure, which goes into effect on December 1st, does not apply to employer policies related to use of company-issued electronic devices such as laptops and smartphones. Also, employers are not prohibited from viewing employee or candidate information that is generally available to the public. State and local law enforcement agencies are not required to adhere to the provisions of the new law.
Continue reading

November 1, 2013

New Jersey Governor Signs Law Designed to Help Women Gain Access to Equal Pay in the Workplace

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has signed into law a bill designed to assist women in the fight for equal pay. The new law prohibits employers from punishing workers who disclose their rate of pay or other compensation information to co-workers who seek to investigate whether a company or employer is engaging in compensation discrimination.

In 2009, data compiled by the United States Census Bureau found that women earn about three-fourths the pay rate of their male counterparts. In high paying professions, the pay gap is reportedly even wider. Census data also found that minority women tend to suffer the highest pay disparity when compared with white men.

The new law was sponsored in the New Jersey Assembly by legislators Angel Fuentes, Pam Lampitt, and Celeste Riley. According to Fuentes, the law will make it more difficult for employers to continue “discriminatory compensation practices” based on gender because workers will be protected from retaliation over sharing their compensation information. Lampitt, who also serves as Assembly Women and Children Committee Chair, stated she hopes the law will help to chip away at the remaining glass ceiling. Riley added that it only makes sense for women with equal education and experience to receive equal pay for the same job.
Continue reading

October 31, 2013

Employers in New Jersey and Across the U.S. May Not Engage in Religious Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch engaged in religious discrimination against a former employee. According to a lawsuit filed by the nation’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2011, the company fired a female Muslim worker for refusing to remove her hijab during work hours. The former worker claims she wore a hijab to the job interview and to work after initially employed by a San Mateo Hollister store. Months later, the company allegedly told the woman the head scarf violated the company’s policy regarding how an employee should look and terminated her. In June, the federal judge who heard the case reportedly criticized Abercrombie & Fitch for failing to provide evidence that the worker’s hijab caused the company to lose revenue. A damages award has not yet been determined.

This is not the first time Abercrombie & Fitch has been accused of illegal discrimination. In 2011, the company lost a wrongful termination lawsuit that was filed against it by another Muslim employee who was apparently fired for refusing to remove her hijab. Earlier this year, Abercrombie & Fitch also lost a disability discrimination lawsuit related to lack of wheelchair access at the company’s Hollister stores. A federal judge gave the company until 2017 to build handicapped accessible store fronts.

Although this situation occurred in California, New Jersey employers are also required to make reasonable accommodations for workers with regard to religious needs. In general, discrimination has occurred if an employer fails to make religious accommodations that do not have a major impact on business operations. Workers who were discriminated against in New Jersey have a right under both state and federal law to sue for damages. Before an employee may recover damages for discrimination, however, he or she must be part of a group that is protected by statute. Workers who suffered discrimination based upon their religion, gender, age, pregnancy status, military status, disability, race, and more may have a discrimination claim against an employer.
Continue reading

October 31, 2013

ADA Protects Workers Suffering From Postpartum Depression in New Jersey, New York, and Nationwide

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

An Indiana-based power grid company recently agreed to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit for more than $90,000. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reportedly filed the lawsuit against Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) in response to a complaint filed by a former employee who was allegedly terminated as a result of a medical leave request related to postpartum depression treatment. MISO reportedly fired the employee for lack of attendance despite that the leave she requested was allowed by company policy. MISO also apparently told the employee that she could not be absent due to the critical nature of her job duties. Still, the company purportedly waited nearly two months after her requested return date to fill the former worker’s position.

According to the EEOC, the former worker’s postpartum depression severely limited more than one of her major life activities for a substantial period of time. Because of this, the agency charged that it was a protected disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the ADA, U.S. employers must provide reasonable accommodations to disabled workers unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship for the employer.

As part of a consent decree, the federal court ordered MISO to pay the former employee $90,500, provide ADA training to company workers, provide annual disability request and compliance reports to the EEOC, and notify other workers about the lawsuit and settlement. The EEOC is also tasked with monitoring company compliance with the ADA over the course of the next three years.
Continue reading

September 19, 2013

Arbitrator Recommends $4.5 Million Award for Sexual Harassment of Former Long Branch School District Worker

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

In early August, an arbitrator awarded a former Long Branch School District worker $4.5 million. In a 2011 civil complaint filed against the school district and prior Superintendent Joseph Ferraina, the former secretary alleged that she was sexually assaulted by and forced to perform sex acts for Ferraina beginning in 2004. The woman also stated Ferraina threatened her with termination if she reported the abuse. According to the former secretary, the school board ignored her complaints regarding the allegedly hostile work environment and instead engaged in a cover-up. Eventually, the woman apparently suffered a nervous breakdown. Ferraina retired from his position at the end of June.

Following a non-binding arbitral hearing, a former Monmouth County judge who acted as arbitrator in the case found in favor of the former secretary. Still, either side of the case may disagree with the arbitrator’s recommendation and file a “trial de novo” before 30 days pass. By doing so, the non-binding arbitral decision would be rendered moot.

As this case shows, one type of sexual harassment is quid pro quo sexual harassment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment may arise when a supervisor conditions a worker’s employment upon his or her submission to sexual advances or demands. As allegedly occurred here, an employee may have a claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment if a supervisor makes him or her feel as if sexual advances must be tolerated in order to keep a job, obtain a raise, be promoted, or to avoid discipline, a demotion, or other negative work-related consequences.
Continue reading

September 19, 2013

High Profile Lawsuit Demonstrates Why New Jersey Employers Should Always Protect Workers From Unlawful Sex Harassment

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

In August, an undisclosed settlement was reached in a highly publicized sexual harassment and race discrimination case. According to a document filed in a Savannah, Georgia federal court, both sides agreed to settle a lawsuit that was filed against celebrity television cook Paula Deen and her brother, Bubba Hiers. The case was brought by a former manager at Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House. The woman’s complaint alleged that the restaurant’s employment practices treated black workers unfairly. She also claimed that she endured sexual harassment from Hiers and was forced to listen to racially offensive statements at work. Before a settlement was reached, a federal judge threw out the white woman’s race discrimination claims for lack of standing.

A nationwide uproar against Deen began after she apparently admitted to making racially derogatory statements during a deposition related to the case. As a result, the celebrity’s television show was cancelled and a number of retailers reportedly dropped her numerous product lines. Prior to the lawsuit, the Paula Deen franchise was reportedly worth millions. At the request of the parties, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

In New York, New Jersey, and across the rest of the country, employers are not legally required to treat all of their workers fairly. For example, an employer may engage in nepotism, favoritism, or simple “office politics.” An employee who is treated unfairly may seek legal action only if the discrimination resulted from his or her gender, race, age, religion, pregnancy status, a mental or physical disability, color, national origin, sexual orientation, veteran or military status, or another legally protected status.
Continue reading

August 27, 2013

Disabled Workers in New Jersey and Nationwide May Suffer Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

According to data filed with the nation’s Department of Labor (DOL), Goodwill Industries paid disabled workers in at least 10 states an hourly wage of less than 22 cents in 2011. In fact, two Texas locations reportedly paid more than 50 employees less than a dime per hour. Additionally, an Ohio location allegedly paid a disabled worker a paltry three cents per hour. Goodwill franchises in Florida, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin purportedly paid employees 21 cents per hour or less between 2008 and 2011. In contrast, Goodwill executives generally earn at least a six-figure annual income.

A little-known federal law reportedly allows Goodwill Industries and other non-profit groups to pay disabled workers wages that fall below the national minimum. Section 14 (c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act allows employers to pay disabled employees based upon their abilities so long as the employer obtains a wage certificate from the DOL. The law, however, was passed in 1938. According to the National Council on Disability’s Clyde Terry, organizations like Goodwill have failed to maintain appropriate wage levels for disabled employees. As a result, Terry believes that disabled persons are often devalued by their employers. He also stated sheltered workshops like those run by Goodwill should be phased out.

Section 14 (c) apparently allows non-profit employers to use so-called time studies to determine the pay rate for disabled employees. The studies reportedly use a stopwatch to determine the amount of time it takes each worker to complete an assigned task. That rate is then compared with the amount of time it takes an employee who is not disabled to complete the same task. Disabled worker pay rates may fluctuate as time studies are allegedly completed once every six months. Goodwill data shows that 69 franchises in the United States employ about 7,300 disabled workers who are currently eligible to receive an hourly wage below the federal minimum of $7.25.

Although Goodwill apparently acted within the limits of federal law, many disabled workers suffer reprehensible and illegal discrimination. Too many employers in New Jersey and across the nation choose to unlawfully discriminate against employees who suffer from a disability as a result of biased thinking. If an individual’s disability does not physically prevent the performance of any essential job duties, an employer has no legal basis to discriminate. If you feel that you suffered discrimination at work as a result of your disability, you are advised to contact a quality employment lawyer to discuss your rights.
Continue reading

August 20, 2013

Paramus Party Company Settles Sexual Harassment Case Filed on Behalf of Terminated Teen Worker

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights has reportedly reached a settlement agreement with a party company that stood accused of ignoring the alleged sexual harassment of a Paramus teenager. According to the Division, the teen endured unwelcome sexual advances and inappropriate comments from a male supervisor for about eight months. In a formal complaint, the teen also told the Division that her former supervisor sent her harassing text messages on her mobile telephone. After the minor female reported the alleged harassment to the company’s co-owner, the teenager claims Screamin’ Parties of Paramus wrongfully terminated her.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the party company must pay the teenager $15,000 and provide all workers with anti-discrimination training. The company also reportedly agreed to establish an effective harassment complaint procedure. Division Director Craig T. Sashihara stated the settlement was a fair one. He added that the teen is entitled to the same protections more experienced workers enjoy.

Employers in New Jersey and New York are required to provide all employees, regardless of age, with a working environment that is free from sexual and other unlawful harassment. An employer’s failure to adequately address workers who violate sexual harassment policies can expose a company to potential lawsuits and place additional workers at risk for mistreatment.

The vast majority of employment law cases in New Jersey involve sexual harassment or discrimination. According to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there were 624 sexual harassment or discrimination cases filed in New Jersey in 2011. Additionally, the number of sexual harassment complaints filed in our state has reportedly increased by 10 percent since 2006. At the same time, the number of such complaints has dropped by 5.5 percent across the country as a whole.

Sexual harassment and discrimination may be committed by a superior or a co-worker. In some cases, an employer may be held accountable for the inappropriate acts of coworkers who commit sexual harassment. If you suffered workplace sexual harassment or discrimination, you owe it to yourself to contact a skilled New Jersey or New York employment lawyer to discuss your rights.
Continue reading

August 20, 2013

EEOC Settlement Reminds Employers in New Jersey and Across U.S. to Refrain from Unlawful Religious Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has agreed to settle a religious discrimination complaint filed against the owners of a hotel chain for $45,000. According to the EEOC, the Comfort Inn Oceanfront South in Nags Head, North Carolina refused to honor an employee’s request not to work on her Sabbath. Although the employee’s religious accommodation was initially honored, a new management team allegedly began requiring the woman, who is a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist, to work on Saturdays. After the worker refused to work on her Sabbath, her employment was purportedly terminated.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against the hotel chain under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids religious discrimination. As part of the settlement agreement, the hotel chain agreed to pay the terminated employee $45,000, implement new operating policies designed to protect workers from religious discrimination, and provide employees with anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation training. In addition, the hotel owners agreed to provide the EEOC with information related to any religious accommodation requests received in the future.

Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, Lynette A. Barnes, stated no worker should be required to choose between employment and religion. Barnes added that employers have an obligation to accommodate the religious needs of employees where there is little impact on the conduct of their business.

Employers in New Jersey are required to make reasonable accommodations for workers with regard to religious holidays and other needs. Generally, discrimination has occurred if an employer fails to make religious accommodations that do not have a major impact on business operations. Employees have a right under both state and federal law to sue for damages if they were discriminated against. In order to recover damages for discrimination, however, workers must be part of a group that is protected by statute. Employees who were discriminated against based upon their religion, age, gender, pregnancy status, race, military status, disability, and more may have a discrimination claim against an employer.

In many cases, employers discriminate against protected classes of individuals by refusing to hire, demoting, terminating, or harassing them. In 2011, the EEOC reportedly filed nearly 2,000 employment lawsuits in New Jersey. Of those, 89 cases involved religious discrimination. If you were the victim of religious or other discrimination in the workplace, you should contact a quality employment attorney to discuss your rights.
Continue reading

August 7, 2013

MLB Adopts New Policy Against Sexual Orientation Harassment and Discrimination in New Jersey and Elsewhere

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Major League Baseball (MLB) recently issued new harassment and discrimination policies to every major and minor league baseball player employed by a member of the league. According to a new agreement, the organization will provide training sessions for employees and a central complaint system that was created to prevent and combat sexual orientation discrimination and harassment. Despite that the MLB already has an anti-discrimination policy in place, Chicago White Sox manager Robin Ventura stated the new code of conduct was designed to ensure that all players fully understand any harassment or discrimination based on a player’s sexual orientation is unacceptable. MLB Commissioner Bud Selig added that the league will not tolerate sexual orientation harassment on or off of the playing field.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman reportedly assisted in drafting the new harassment and discrimination policy. Earlier this year, Schneiderman also assisted the National Football League with drafting a similar code of conduct after questions purportedly arose at the NFL combine. According to Schneiderman, both policies constitute a “clear stand against discrimination.” The Major League Baseball Players Association has also expressed its support for the new policy.

Although the new MLB policy only affects professional baseball players, all employers in New Jersey are prohibited from discriminating against current or potential workers who are members of a protected class. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) also prohibits discrimination in any job-related action on the basis of any of the law’s protected categories. LAD protected categories include race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex, pregnancy status, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, mental or physical disability, and more. In addition, employers in New Jersey may not engage in retaliation after a worker makes a good faith complaint about alleged discrimination or harassment. Individuals who suffered workplace discrimination in New Jersey may choose to file a formal complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights within 180 days of the incident or file a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court. A quality New Jersey employment attorney can explain the process in greater detail.
Continue reading