Close

New Jersey Employment Attorneys Blog

Updated:

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT RULES THAT CATHOLIC SCHOOL HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DISCHARGE AN UNMARRIED TEACHER BECAUSE SHE BECAME PREGNANT AFTER ENGAGING IN PREMARTIAL SEX.

Can a Catholic Church which owns and operates a religious parochial school discharge one of its unmarried teachers because she became pregnant in violation of the Catholic Church’s teachings and her employment contract which both forbade engaging in premarital sex?  In Crisitello v. St. Theresa School, 2023 N.J. LEXIS 847…

Updated:

DISTRICT COURT RULES THAT AN OUT-OF-STATE EMPLOYEE OF A NEW JERSEY BASED COMPANY IS PROTECTED BY NEW JERSEY’S LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

The New Jersey Supreme Court has yet to decide whether an out-of-state remote worker who worked for a New Jersey-based company is protected by New Jersey’s laws prohibiting workplace discrimination. This is why the New Jersey District Court for the District of New Jersey in Schulman v. Zoetis, Inc., 2023…

Updated:

APPELLATE DIVISION RULES THAT A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CLAIM UNDER CEPA MAY BE PURSUED WHERE AN EMPLOYER REPEATEDLY INSISTS OVER AN EMPLOYEE’S OBJECTIONS THAT SHE ENGAGE IN CONDUCT SHE REASONABLY BELIEVES VIOLATES THE LAW.

“A constructive discharge occurs when the employer has imposed upon an employee working conditions ‘so intolerable that a reasonable person subject to them would resign.'” Daniels v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 340 N.J. Super. 11, 17 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting Muench v. Twp. of Haddon, 255 N.J. Super. 288, 302…

Updated:

THE APPELLATE DIVISION SAYS YOU CANNOT GET YOUR AGE DISCRIMINATION CASE BEFORE A JURY IF AFTER BEING DISCHARGED YOUR WORK DUTIES ARE ASSIGNED TO A YOUNGER EXISTING WORKER RATHER THAN A YOUNGER PERSON BEING HIRED TO REPLACE YOU.

Plaintiff Kalloo, age 61, worked for New York New Jersey Rail, LLC (NYNJR) for some 13 years as a train engineer.  He got into a physical altercation with a coworker who was only 23 years old. Witnesses seemed to corroborate that Kalloo was the instigator. Kalloo was terminated for cause…

Updated:

NEW JERSEY FEDERAL COURT SAYS NO RIGHT TO SUE UNDER CREAMMA IF YOU ARE NOT HIRED DUE TO SMOKING OR INGESTING MARIJUANA

In a case of first impression, Judge O’Hearn of the United Stated District Court of the District of New Jersey (USDNJ) concluded that there is neither an express or implied cause of action under the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (“CREAMMA”), N.J.S.A. 24:6I-52. Judge O’Hearn…

Updated:

THE APPELLATE DIVISION SAYS YOU MAY BE REQUIRED BY YOUR EMPLOYER TO PERFORM A PHYSICAL WORK ASSIGNMENT EVEN IF YOU ARE A 60-YEAR-OLD WORKER TYPICALLY ASSIGNED TO A SEDENTARY DESK JOB.

Recently the New Jersey Appellate Division held that a 60-year-old electronics systems engineer and computer programmer with a Ph.D. did not make out a case for age or disability discrimination under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) after refusing a temporary assignment as a field telephone pole lineman. In Estate…

Updated:

IN A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION THE APPELLATE DIVISION ISSUES A PUBLISHED DECISION GRANTING MASHEL LAW’S CLIENTS AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS OF WORKERS THEY REPRESENT THE RIGHT TO PROVE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO 6 YEARS OF WAGE LOSS DAMAGES.

The New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (WHL) and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (WPL) require that New Jersey workers be timely paid for all wages earned including, but not limited to, being paid an overtime rate of 1½ times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked…

Updated:

NEW JERSEY DISCRIMINATION AND WHISTLEBLOWING CLAIMS CAN BE PROVED BY EVIDENCE SHOWING HOW A NON-DECISIONMAKER’S DISCRIMINATORY VIEWS OR RETALIATORY MOTIVE INFLUENCED THE EMPLOYER TO TAKE ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST THE VICTIMIZED EMPLOYEE

In New Jersey an employee can prove they were the victim of workplace discrimination in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) or unlawful whistleblowing retaliation in violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) by presenting evidence that an equal or subordinate coworker influenced the employer to…

Updated:

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS THE HEAVY BURDEN EMPLOYERS MUST SATISFY TO ESTABLISH THAT THOSE WHO WORK FOR THEM ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, NOT EMPLOYEES.

In East Bay Drywall, LLC v. Department of Labor & Workforce Development 2022 N.J. LEXIS 671 (2022) the New Jersey Supreme Court reaffirmed that an alleged employer must satisfy each element of the ABC Control test to establish they properly classified their workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees. N.J.S.A.…

Updated:

APPELLATE DIVISION SAYS IT MAY BE DISCRIMINATORY FOR A SCHOOL BOARD TO DISMISS A NON-TENURED NIGERIAN TEACHER FOR DISPLAYING THE FLAG OF NIGERIA OUTSIDE HER CLASSROOM

In Okakpu v. Irvington Bd. of Education, 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1297 (decided July 18, 2022), our Appellate Division was asked to decide whether a triable issue was created by the Irvington Board of Education (“IBOE”) stating that one of the reasons it decided not to renew the contract…

Contact Us