New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

I recently read an article on how firms handle layoffs. The article made the point that there is no uniform procedure amongst employers for laying off employees. Employers are often puzzled when faced with the dilemma of having to engage in a mass layoff, whether it's 5, 50 or 500 employees. So what does an employer do?

In New Jersey, employment lawyers are quite busy these days fielding calls and providing advice on how to handle layoffs. As a preliminary matter, all employers have to be mindful of the WARN Act which imposes penalties and civil liability for failing to give proper notice for a mass layoff. New Jersey has it's own version of the WARN Act which employers must review before laying off employees. But assuming notice is not required under state and federal law, should an employer give notice to the employees. The answer is really up to the employer. This is not an easy question because the employer runs the risk that the service and dedication to the company will not be there if the employee knows that he or she is being terminated. Some employers feel the moral obligation to let the employees know as soon as possible that here jobs at risk. This is where the severance package becomes a useful tool for the employer. An employer can reduce the risk of litigation substantially by offering a severance package and also accomplish the task of compensating the employee for not being able to provide advance notice of the layoff, even if the notice was not legally required, but was more of a moral requirement.

Under N.J.S.A. 18A:66-40(a), a school district must return a formerly disabled teacher to the next available opening in the position that he or she held at the time of the disability retirement, so long as the teacher meets the standards set by the State Board of Education for that position, i.e., a valid teaching certificate and endorsements.

Does this standard apply even if the teacher went out over twenty years ago for alcoholism? In New Jersey, the answer is yes. The New Jersey employment lawyer representing the teacher was successful in getting the New Jersey Supreme Court to rule that a teacher that went out on leave for alcoholism dependency over 20 years ago must be reinstated because the Teachers Pension Annuity Fund found her sufficiently recovered to return to teaching. See Klumb v. Board of Education of the Manalapan-Englishtown School District. The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the Manalapan-Englishtown Regional School District to rehire her.

I think most New Jersey employment lawyers will agree that this was a tough case for the teacher's lawyer. New Jersey has some of the most liberal employment laws and this case makes the point.

On April 29, 2009, the Township of Teaneck agreed to pay a total of $4.9 million to a former policeman and a former fireman who claimed they were retaliated against for testifying in harassment suits brought by co-workers. The payment includes attorney fees for the New Jersey employment lawyer that represented the plaintiffs.

John Shouldis, an officer that left the police department in 2005 on disability, had claimed that he was denied promotions, threatened with dismissal and placed on midnight road patrol after his 2000 testimony in a sexual-harassment suit by officer Diane Mancini against Police Chief Donald Giannone and Capt. Warren White. Mancini won a $1.5 million verdict. In the retaliation case, Shouldis prevailed at trial and obtained a $4.1 million verdict. The New Jersey employment lawyer representing Shouldis sought $2.5 million in fees and costs. The council for the Township of Teaneck approved a $4.7 million settlement of all claims.

The second retaliation case settled for $200,000.00. Matthew Vogelman, who resigned as a fireman in 2007, claimed that he was denied medical leave and was subject to unfair discipline and increased scrutiny of his work after he testified in the harassment suit of former fireman Bill Brennan, a case that settled for $800,000 in 2005.

The Appellate Division dealt New Jersey employment lawyers representing plaintiffs a blow today. The Division ruled today that that an at will casino employee terminated because of bad publicity associated with his co-employee's illegal acts does not state a cause of action for wrongful discharge under New Jersey employment law.

A casino employee in Atlantic City admitted to the Casino Control Commission that he conducted illegal surveillance as a security/surveillance employee while working for the Caesar's Palace Casino in Atlantic City. The illegal surveillance involved the use of the "eyes in the sky" cameras to ogle women in the casino. The plaintiff, another employee that worked in the same department of the wrongdoer, did not admit to the illegal conduct but was fired because of the bad publicity associated with the case before the casino control commission. . Does he have a case for wrongful discharge? Not according to the New Jersey Appellate Division. A New Jersey employment lawyer filed a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff for wrongful discharge in violation of New Jersey public policy laws. The plaintiff also field a claim for false light based on comments made by the Casino to the press. The New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that the plaintiff's false light claim was rooted in defamation, and therefore, must be dismissed because the lawsuit was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations. The Appellate Division also booted the public policy claim holding that the employee was at will and the Casino had every right to terminate the employee because it believed he was not performing his job.

I recently read an article on CNN that addressed the issue of a bad boss. As a New Jersey employment lawyer I have the distinct pleasure of hearing numerous friends tell their tales of a bad boss in the workplace, usually these tales are presented to me over the course of a dinner after a 10 hour day at the office. What better time? I am, of course, the sounding board and take it well. I suspect that most of the tales are told to me with the hope that someday I will look one of my friends in the face and tell them that their mean and belligerent boss can absolutely be sent to hell and never return. Here, I have the statute that regulates such conduct in my back pocket and it specifically states that bad bosses must go to hell - period.

OK, I guess you figured out that I am not serious. Well, contrary to what most employees think, there really isn't much that can be done about the bad boss. New Jersey employment laws generally do not protect employees from a bad boss. However, the employment laws in New Jersey protect employees from discriminatory conduct such as harassment. Discrimination needs to be based on a classification such as race, gender, age, religion, etc. General harassment claims are really not protected under New Jersey employment law. There are some claims that may be so egregious that an employee may state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it is a rare day that a court will uphold such a claim. The point I am making is that the "bad boss" claims are not good claims unless you have a claim for discrimination. And, a bad boss is not necessarily the same as a discriminatory boss.

While it is true that a bad boss can generally harass an employee with no fear of legal repercussions, this does not mean that an employee cannot inform the company's human resources department. In my experience, most human resources take complaints of a bad boss seriously, even though the complaint may not rise to the level of discrimination prohibited under law. Employees are not without recourse to present their grievances; they just don't have the backing of the law to sue the employer.

A plaintiff was awarded close to 500K by a federal judge becuase she was rejected from a position with the Library of Congress while undergoing a gender change from a man to a woman.

The plaintiff, Diane Schroer, applied for the position of terrorism analyst job. At the time she applied she was still a man. He was offered the job. However, the offer was pulled after he made public the fact that he was changing his gender.

The ruling was for $491,190, which included payment for backpay. The employment lawyer for the Library of Congress, and the employment lawyer for the Justice Department, argued that discrimination based on transsexuality was not illegal sex discrimination under the language of the Civil Rights Act.

This should be an interesting case to follow on appeal to see if the gender identity claim holds up. Many employment lawyers in New Jersey are of the opinion that the Title VII Civil Rights Act does not protect employees that claim gender identity discrimination. In New Jersey, an employment lawyer can allege gender identity discrimination claims on behalf of the client under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.