New Jersey

Employer wins lawsuit despite a “pattern of systematic sexual harassment”

August 15, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

In Mann v. Staples, Inc., a female employee received unwelcome comments about her appearance and physique, was kissed and groped, and called a “skank ass bitch.” The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, described this as a “pattern of systemic sexual harassment” — one in which the alleged harasser appeared to have never received any anti-harassment training.

So, what did the court do? It affirmed summary judgment for the employer and dismissed the plaintiff’s Complaint.

What?!?

Find out why, after the jump…

* * *

The 3rd Circuit’s new FLSA joint-employment test…in HAIKU

August 14, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

I just re-read yesterday’s blog drivel. What the hell was that?!? As much as I do love the two great tastes that taste great together, that was an utter FAIL and I vow never to incorporate Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups into a blog post again. Unless, of course: (a) a makeshift Peanut Butter Cup bra is prominently featured in a reported sexual harassment case; or (b) Hershey’s wants to discuss some strategic product placement on The Employer Handbook. What can I say? YOLO and even this blogger has his price.

[Editor’s note: I was determined to work YOLO into this blog post. Be nice. Although, my blogging chops are generally sharp, I’m about three months behind on the lingo.]

Focus, Eric. Short blog post. You can handle haiku.

Arrgh! I cannot believe that Haiku-themed blog post, 17 syllables, would require readers to click through past the jump. Ah, whatever. Click through and someone call my editor…

Recipient of nasty racial slurs from an office friend loses bias claim

July 24, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

What if I told you that a female black employee was called “monkey” and “nappy head Raggedy Ann” at work?

What if I then told you that the employee subsequently sued in New Jersey state court; quite possibly the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in the U.S. — next to California?

And guess what? She lost. Oh my!

What the heck happened and what can employers learn from this recent decision? Find out after the jump…

* * *

To minimize FMLA lawsuits, hire slow and fire fast (before the FMLA request)

July 18, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

In the world of Human Resources, “hire slow, fire fast” generally holds true to avoid just about any lawsuit.

Unfortunately, for one NJ employer, it didn’t get the memo. And now it finds itself having to defend against FMLA interference and retaliation claims at trial.

What did this employer do wrong and how can you avoid making the same mistake? Find out after the jump…

* * *

NJ reaffirms that officers may be personally liable for unpaid wages

July 6, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Want another reason not to enter into a long-term contract with an employee? Click through…

* * *

Employer customer lists: “Whatever you say, dude.”

June 25, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

You’re looking to hire a new salesperson. Scott Salesperson comes in to interview. He currently works for your top competitor.

“Scott, do you have a non-competition agreement?”

“No.”

“Scott, do you have a confidentiality agreement?”

“No. In fact, I have a list of my own customers that I could sell to if you hire me.”

Sounds good, right. But, before hiring Scott, do you have any obligation to independently verify the facts that Scott has represented?

New Jersey employers will definitely want to click through because, last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court answered…

* * *

4 pending bills that could change the NJ employment landscape

June 13, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

One of my favorite reads on NJ employment law is Ogletree Deakins’s New Jersey eAuthority. The June 2012 issue highlights several pieces of legislation now pending in NJ of which employers should take note. I’ve summarized four of them after the jump…

* * *

EEOC now publishes charge data, by state. Have a look…

May 17, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

You can access the state-by-state charge data here. And view it all in a single downloadable spreadsheet here.

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals filed 4,302 charges of discrimination in FY2011, which amounts to 4.3% of the total number of US charges filed. As with Americans across the country, retaliation was the most popular box checked (37.2% of all charges) in Pennsylvania. However, disability was number two in PA (31.1%) versus a national average of 25.8%, which pales compared to race and sex, nationally. Rounding out the top five in PA were: (3) sex (30%); (4) race (27.3%); and (5) age (27.3%).

Across the river in New Jersey, which has two-thirds the population of PA, residents filed less than half the number of charges (1,841) with the EEOC in FY2011 as were filed in PA. The reason? I suspect it is because individuals who have claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which is very similar to the federal discrimination laws, do not need to file a claim with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, the state’s administrative agency, before going to court. The top five boxes checked on NJ EEOC charges were: (1) retaliation (35.1%), (2) race (33.9%); (3) disability (25.8%); (4) sex (24.8%); and (5) age (23.3%).

U.S. Senate now has its own FB password bill; NJ nears similar ban

May 14, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Well, that didn’t take long.

Late last month, I reported on a bill that had been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, known as the Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA), that would prohibit employers, schools, and universities from requiring someone to provide a username, password or other access to online content.

Now, it’s the U.S. Senate’s turn to get in on the act with its own password bill. Plus, after the jump, I’ll have an update on similar legislation winding its way to Governor Christie in New Jersey…

* * *

Court holds mistaken discrimination is unmistakably illegal

April 20, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

The Americans with Disabilities Act explicitly forbids discrimination against those who are actually disabled or “regarded as” disabled. As a NJ court once recognized, “Distinguishing between actual handicaps and perceived handicaps makes no sense.” Indeed, “prejudice in the sense of a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be . . . non-existent.”

Does the same maxim apply to workplace discrimination — a barrage of anti-semitic comments — directed at employee whom the harassers believe is Jewish, but really isn’t?

Is that unlawful?

The answer from a NJ court after the jump…

* * *