New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

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.

Employment lawyers in New Jersey should take note of yet another change in the law with respect to family leave. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has recently ruled it is not necessary that an employee actually take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for the retaliations provisions to be invoked. Under the federal employment law, employees that merely ask permission for leave under the act are protected under the retaliation provisions of the act. The Court's decision is binding on employers in the State of New Jersey.

U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman wrote in Erdman v. Nationwide Insurance Co. that "[i]t would be patently absurd if an employer who wished to punish an employee for taking FMLA leave could avoid liability simply by firing the employee before the leave begins . . "

NJ employment lawyers may see an increase in court filings as a result of the recent decision. Employees are now free to file retaliation claims against their employer for adverse employment actions taken in retaliation for an employee's request for time off under the act.

Not too much is new in employment law, but New Jersey's Family Leave Insurance Law just went into effect. Employees in the State of New Jersey can now apply for six weeks of paid leave to care for sick relative or bond with a newborn or adopted child.

If you are a New Jersey employment lawyer representing employers it would probably be a good idea to suggest that your clients update their employment manuals to reflect the recent changes in the law.

Employees are still entitled to 12 weeks of time off under the New Jersey Family Leave Act, except that 6 of the weeks may be paid under the New Jersey Family Leave Insurance Law.

Employment lawyers can prove a case of discrimination even though an employee is granted all of his or her allotted time under the Family Medical Leave Act.

A former employee with United Airlines was handed a 3 Million dollar verdict from a jury in Denver, Colorado. The jury found that the company retaliated against the employee for complaining about acts of discrimination. New Jersey employment lawyers, and human resource professionals in New Jersey, should play close attention to this case because the legal standards point out that a company can still be liable for discrimination even though it grants an employee all of his or her allotted time under the Family Medical Leave Act.

Plaintiff lost her job as a ramp-services supervisor in March 2006. She had been employed by the company for 12 years. The plaintiff has a disabled 3 year old son. The plaintiff requested alternative jobs in 2005 when she anticipated complications with her pregnancy. The plaintiff contended that the request was denied. Her son was born 11 weeks premature.

The plaintiff had utilized all of her family medical leave, vacation time and sick leave. She then requested unpaid leave but was denied. The company instructed the plaintiff to return to work in March 2006. The plaintiff did not return to work and was fired. The plaintiff alleged in her discrimination lawsuit that the company frequently granted approval on requests for unpaid leave from males in similar positions. The company defended the case by claiming that there was a shortage of ramp supervisors and could not accommodate her request. The company contended that it could not keep the plaintiff's position open. The jury decided that the plaintiff was retaliated against because of her complaints of discrimination but not because she was a woman.

Although the plaintiff prevailed on her retaliation claim, and not the gender discrimination claim, the plaintiff could have prevailed on her gender discrimination claim if the jury believed that she was not treated in the same manner as the male employees when deciding whether to grant unpaid leave to an employee after they exhaust all of their allotted time under leave under the Family Medical Leave Act.

New Jersey also has its own family leave act which is known as the New Jersey Family Leave Act. The New Jersey Family Leave Act has anti-retaliation provision similar to the Federal Family Medical Leave Act.