The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) protects against discrimination based on certain protected characteristics in housing, employment, places of public accommodation, credit, and business contracts. In general, the NJLAD prohibits taking “adverse employment actions” against employees or candidates for employment because of protected characteristics or discriminating against employees or candidates in any actions related to hiring, firing, compensation, terms and conditions of employment, or retirement based on protected characteristics. A recent case involving the Plainfield Fire Department reaffirms that the NJLAD protects members of a majority group against illegal discrimination in the same manner as it protects minorities.
If you’ve suffered an on-the-job injury, you may worry about more than your physical recovery—you may worry that you won’t be able to return to work. A lot of factors play into whether you will be able to go back to your job after an injury. Knowing the laws and requirements can help you focus on your recovery rather than worrying about your employment.
Going through a divorce can be extremely difficult – especially if it’s accompanied by the loss of your job. But a new ruling from the New Jersey Supreme Court might help protect your job: the Court recently ruled that the protection of New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) forbids all kinds of discrimination based on marital status, including whether a person is in the process of getting a divorce.
It’s illegal under both federal and New Jersey state law for an employer to discriminate against any current or potential employee on the basis of that employee’s age, but there are significant differences between the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The ADEA and NJLAD each apply to different categories of employers and businesses and protect different groups of people.
Johnson & Johnson announced recently that it will reduce its workforce by about 3,000 employees over the next two fiscal years. Headquartered in New Brunswick, J&J is one of the biggest employers in the state of New Jersey and has a number of large facilities in Somerset County.
If you’re returning to work after the birth of a child, you may find yourself with a new dilemma: how to take breaks to express breast milk.
This week, a bipartisan contingent of senators is introducing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA). If it passes, this bill will make it easier to prove age discrimination in cases brought by older workers against their employers.
Imagine dedicating more than fifty years of your life to the same company. Each day you wake up early to make it into the office before 5AM, and you often stay until after 5PM. You joke with your co-workers about how this means you only work “half a day,” subtly bringing attention to the fact you work 12 hours each and every workday. Despite the long hours, you do not receive overtime pay and choose not to make a big deal about it because you truly enjoy your job. Then, suddenly, you are fired without warning.
Could it be age discrimination? That is exactly the question that Robert Dobkin is asking a federal court in Brooklyn to consider. Dobkin began working for U.S. Seal Manufacturers in 1962 and loyally served the company until 2013, when he was fired. On the day he was terminated, Dobkin was called into his manager’s office and told that the company was undergoing a “workforce reduction.” Unfortunately, however, this supposed “workforce reduction” only had one victim: Dobkin.
A former prosecutor from Hunterdon County, New Jersey, has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit after he believed the attorney general's office improperly dismissed a grand jury indictment for political reasons, and later reported the incident to his supervisors. New Jersey law protects employees from being fired for making reports of alleged impropriety or misconduct. The New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) prevents a "whistleblower," or someone who makes a report of misconduct in good faith, from becoming the victim of adverse employment actions if he or she makes such a report.
Topics: Wrongful Termination
The United States Supreme Court has ruled in Staub v. Proctor Hospital that an employee who is being harassed by a manager, who then influences upper level management's decision to terminate an employee can bind the employer in a wrongful termination action. In Staub, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Court, held that the confusing "cat's paw theory of job discrimination" can reach to an employer when a biased supervisor, one with some evidence of animus toward the employee, causes the supervisor's decision to terminate the employee. The court reasoned that while the supervisor terminated the employee, it was based upon the harassment and animus of the lower manager's personal animus against the employee.
Topics: Wrongful Termination