What could possibly beat a New Jersey jug handle? Anything really. But will you settle for three short items involving social media and the courtroom? If so, hit the jump. If not, here’s a Wikipedia post about the history of jug handles.
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits genetic information discrimination in employment, took effect on November 21, 2009. Nearly a year later, the EEOC published the final GINA regulations.
How does this law affect employers? I’ll break it down for you after the jump.
The New Jersey Supreme Court in
Our old friend Robert Rank-And-File is at it again. He has sued his employer, Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc., in federal court. Robert claims that Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it failed to promote him because of his gender, national origin and race. Before he initiated his lawsuit, Robert filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But Robert has a problem. He filed his charge two years after he claims that Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc. failed to promote him. Under Title VII, his claim is now time-barred. But can he use the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to salvage his claim?
Find out after the jump…
Recently, I read an article by Bob Egelko in
the San Francisco Chronicle about a speech from U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in which he told law
students from U.C. Hastings that the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which guarantees equal protection to all U.S.
citizens, do not preclude discrimination based on sex. Justice Scalia
believes that the drafters of the Constitution did not have sex
discrimination on the brain when they passed the 14th Amendment.
There are plenty of good reasons that plaintiff’s lawyers heart the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). It has a wide scope of coverage for employees with disabilities. It’s remedial purposes are incredibly broad. A plaintiff can go directly to court with a claim under the NJLAD without vetting it with a state administrative agency first. A plaintiff can stay out of federal court where the odds of losing on an employment discrimination case on summary judgment are much higher than they are in state court.
As if the plaintiff’s bar didn’t need any further reasons to love the NJLAD.
Well, here’s one more…
Your employee wears a head-covering. The employee’s head-covering is part of her religious practice.
You’re not one to interfere with an employee’s religious expressions, but you’re concerned that this head-covering creates a safety risk for both the employee and others. And maybe you run a prison and the head-covering could be used to smuggle in contraband.
After jump, I have some practice tips for you.
Continue reading
My blog designers told me that if I want to build SEO — that’s Search Engine Optimization to you rookies — I’d better write about employment law issues affecting Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware (duh!) and “optimize” my blog post titles with the keywords near the front.
Learn more about which employees are covered after the jump.
Continue reading
In some cases, a plaintiff will argue as part of his Title VII discrimination action that his former employer didn’t fire him. But rather he was constructively discharged. That’s fancy speak for being forced to resign.
Continue reading
Robert Rank-And-File, an employee of Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc., claims that Sally Supervisor told him, “Sleep with me, or you’re fired!” Robert declines Sally’s advances only to have Sally fire him. If Robert decides to pursue an action under Title VII against Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc., how can he prevail at trial?
Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog