Photo of Don A. Innamorato

On June 8, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court made two significant rulings in Richter v. Oakland Board of Education. First, the Court held that an employee need not establish an adverse employment action as an element for a failure-to-accommodate claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). This holding built on prior case law, particularly in the context of retaliation claims, and was not unexpected given the broad remedial purpose of the NJLAD.  The second holding, however, is much more significant and may have far-reaching implications. Specifically, the Court held that the exclusive remedy provision of the New Jersey Worker’s Compensation Act’s (WCA), also known as the “workers’ compensation bar,” does not prevent an employee from recovering for physical injuries through a claim under the NJLAD, and there is no need for the employee to show an intentional wrong (which is generally required to recover for physical workplace injuries outside of the workers’ compensation context). This is a major shift in the law governing workplace injuries and potentially opens a host of new available damages in certain circumstances.
Continue Reading NJ workers’ compensation exclusivity not so exclusive anymore: NJ Supreme Court issues major ruling on the New Jersey workers’ compensation bar and NJLAD failure to accommodate claims

The NJ DOL has published the new mandatory notice that, by December 7, 2011, must be posted in a conspicuous location and distributed to all existing employees who work in New Jersey. In addition, ALL new employees hired in New Jersey on November 7, 2011 or after must be immediately provided with a copy of

To prevent job applicants with criminal records from automatic hiring rejection, cities and states are considering and already adopting so-called “Ban the Box” laws and ordinances. Among the states that have adopted such a law are Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico, and the cities of Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago and Philadelphia. Among the states mulling such legislation are Rhode Island and Nebraska, and the city of Pittsburgh.

This Alert lauds the policy considerations behind “Ban the Box” type of legislation but points out how it can unintentionally create impossible-hiring decisions and pose huge legal risks for employers.

“Ban the Box” legislation, as discussed in the “Philadelphia Joins the Movement To Ban Inquiries into Arrests and Convictions on Employment Applications,” restricts and, in Philadelphia and other locales, limits covered employers from asking about an applicant’s criminal record during the hiring process. The laws in Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Massachusetts, and the bill proposed in Rhode Island, forbid covered employers from asking an applicant about a conviction until after assessment of his or her qualifications for the job. Though the laws in Connecticut, Minnesota and New Mexico apply only to public (meaning government) employers, there is mounting support to amend them to cover private employers, as in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Philadelphia.Continue Reading The Dangers to U.S. & Worldwide Employers from ‘Ban the Box’ Legislation

On April 13, 2011, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed a new city ordinance that bans Philadelphia employers from asking applicants about their convictions during the initial phases of the hiring process and precludes them from ever asking about arrests which failed to result in a conviction. Due to become effective on July 12, 2011, the

The United States Bankruptcy Code prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an existing employee because of a bankruptcy filing.

In December, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to extend that same protection to applicants for employment. In Rea v. Federated Investors, the court ruled that the phrase

Lessons for Employers in a Social Media World

Recently, in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her Internet-based emails to her lawyer, despite the fact that she sent such emails from a company-owned laptop and was on notice of the employer’s written policy that emails may not be considered “private or personal.” The opinion is significant not only in recognizing a privacy interest for employees’ communications to their attorneys using company-owned-and-monitored networks, but also in providing important guidelines for employers drafting or updating their policies on use of email and the Internet. In addition, Stengart issues a warning to both in-house and outside counsel involved in the forensic review of employees’ computer-based data and communications.Continue Reading New Jersey High Court Limits Employer’s Right To Review Employee Emails

In a typical harassment/discrimination claim, a plaintiff alleges that inappropriate or discriminatory conduct rendered his or her work environment hostile and, in many cases, that he or she also suffered an adverse employment action (e.g., discharge) caused by the discriminatory workplace. For many years, employers were often successful in obtaining the dismissal of such claims where it could be shown that, at the time of the adverse employment action, the decision-maker had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s protected class or the hostile environment. In essence, the decision-maker could not possibly have discriminated on the basis of something of which he or she was never aware. Hostile work environment claims based solely on a single alleged comment were also prone to dismissal. In a recent case, however, the New Jersey Appellate Division drew upon new federal decisions to change the legal landscape for employers. This change is expected to make it easier for plaintiffs to avoid pretrial dismissal of their suits, and to present their discrimination and harassment claims to a jury.

In an unpublished decision, Kwiatkowski v. Merrill Lynch, the New Jersey Appellate Division adopted the “subordinate bias” theory that several federal courts have applied in Title VII cases when reviewing the dismissal of a discrimination claim. Often described as the “cat’s paw” or “rubber stamp” theory of liability, the subordinate bias theory holds that an employer may be found liable for a facially nondiscriminatory employment action if the decision-maker may have been influenced—even unknowingly—by a biased subordinate employee. In such a case, the biased subordinate provides an illegal taint to the decision-maker’s action by selectively reporting, or even fabricating, information in his communications with her. Thus, the employer can still be held liable even though the decision-maker herself was unbiased, or not even aware that the plaintiff was in a protected class, or had previously complained of discrimination or harassment. In the Kwiatkowski case, the Appellate Division reversed an award of summary judgment to the employer, based upon the federal decisions applying the “subordinate bias” theory.Continue Reading New Jersey Appellate Division Adopts ‘Cat’s Paw’ Theory of Discrimination and Also Expands ‘Single Comment’ Hostile Environment Claims