New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

Facebook, Myspace, and other social networking sites are working their way in to employment litigation. Employment lawyers in New Jersey and other states that represent management are cautioning employers on the risks associated with managers and supervisors becoming too friendly with subordinates on ever so popular social networking sites such as Facebook.

In a recent article in the New Jersey Law Journal employment lawyer Shanti Atkins, president of ELT Inc., which specializes in compliance training in the workplace, pointed out that personal information that is not supposed to influence employment decisions is typically available on the social networking sites. Information such as religious affiliation, age, ethnicity, political affiliation, health problems is typically available on the sites. Employment lawyer Shanti Atkins pointed out that a boss planning to terminate an employee may see information about the employee's medical condition or frustration over religious intolerance. Atkins questions if this information will influence the manager's decision, or will it be perceived as influencing the manager.

Employers clearly need to update their policies and procedures to prevent any this information from influencing management.

An out-of-state company that requires disputes be brought in the home state of the company may not be enforceable under the terms of an employment agreement. In this recent case, Plaintiff Nancy Nuzzi entered into an employment agreement. The agreement contained a clause which stated that litigation arising out of the agreement would be brought in the State of California. Plaintiff Nuzzi worked in the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff sued for violations of the New Jersey Family Leave Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiff's case because it was filed in New Jersey. The New Jersey employment lawyer representing the employee appealed. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals. reversed holding that the Plaintiff did not clearly waive her rights under New Jersey employment laws.

See Nuzzi v. Aupaircare, No. 08-1210, 3rd Cir., 2009.

New Jersey employment ,lawyers representing employers need to ensure in employment agreements that the employee clearly waives their right to claims brought under New Jersey employment laws. The terms need to be unambiguous and clear.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a ruling Wednesday that defendants can never be awarded counsel fees under the offer of judgment rule in any case in which plaintiffs benefit from a statutory fee-shifting provision, which includes the New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act. However, the decision gives defendants an incentive to make an offer in such cases anyway, so long as it is clear about how much would be for the plaintiff and how much for the plaintiff's legal fees.

The New Jersey High Court's opinion, in Best v. C&M Door Controls, Inc., is clearly an attempt to reconcile the intent of laws that allow fee switching for plaintiffs in workplace rights cases and the Offer of Judgment Rule, which uses fee awards to penalize parties, including plaintiffs who do not accept reasonable settlements.

Employment lawyers in New Jersey will certainly be impacted by the Supreme Court's decision. Employment lawyers representing plaintiffs can be thankful that defendants cannot be awarded fees. However, a New Jersey lawyer representing an employee may have his fees adjusted for failing to accept a reasonable settlement offer by the defendant.