New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog

New Jersey Moves Forward with Hair Discrimination Law

December 18, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Earlier this week, New Jersey’s Assembly and Senate passed a ban on discrimination associated with hair. Discrimination based on hair has been popping up in courtrooms and legislatures across the country. Once Governor Murphy signs off, it will be unlawful to discriminate based upon hair.

In several states, bills have been proposed to increase protections from hair based discrimination. The New Jersey State Assembly Labor Committee approved a bill this past summer to ban discrimination based upon hairstyles and textures that are traditionally associated with race and is considered a form of race discrimination. The bill was prompted by a December 2018 incident involving a New Jersey high school wrestler forced by a referee to cut his hair, styled in locs, or forfeit the match. The bill was proposed by Assemblywoman Angela McKnight, Hudson County’s representative, following the outrage surrounding the wrestler’s forced hair cut—performed publicly by the referee, in front of spectators. The bill, originally introduced this summer that was recently passed, amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to reflect that “race” is inclusive of traits “historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles.” “Protective hair styles includes, but is not limited to, such hairstyles as braids, locks, and twists.”

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers and places of public accommodation from discriminating against employees and other persons. While race has long been recognized as a protected class of persons protected by the state discrimination law, the New Jersey law will specifically prohibit discrimination based upon hair, if the governor signs it into law.

Lift Our Voices: National Effort to Curb the Use of NDAs

December 12, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

On December 11, 2019 at The Hollywood Reporter’s Annual Women in Entertainment breakfast gala, Gretchen Carlson announced the formation and launch of “Lift of our Voices,” an education and advocacy organization focused on putting an end to the practice of using Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”) to silence victims of sexual harassment and discrimination. In making the announcement, Carlson was joined on stage by Charlize Theron, an actress who is portraying Megyn Kelly in the upcoming film “Bombshell,” which details the Fox News sexual harassment scandal that saw then-CEO Roger Ailes forced to resign from the company. Carlson’s sexual harassment complaint against Ailes ultimately lead to his resignation, but her settlement with Fox News, and the NDA she was required to sign to enter into that settlement, have prevented her from speaking publicly about the case.

An NDA is a contract that identifies certain information or topics that the parties agree they will not discuss with anyone following execution of the contract or agreement. NDAs typically are entered into in connection with an additional contract or agreement, such as an employment contract or a settlement or severance agreement. Often in the context of employment contracts, a prospective employee will agree not to discuss or disclose certain information regarding their employment to anyone outside the company, in exchange for being hired. In the context of settlement or severance agreements, a departing employee agrees not to discuss or disclose certain information regarding their employment or their reason for leaving the employment, in exchange for a settlement or severance payment.

In either situation, the NDA agreement can be used by the employer to facially “resolve” issues of harassment and discrimination without truly addressing systemic issues within their organization. In such a case, new prospective employees are unaware that they are entering a workplace where they may be unsafe. The public at large is likewise kept unaware, and individuals will then unwittingly support companies that they otherwise may choose not to support. Consumers are unable to apply commercial pressure to businesses that harbor and protect harassers, allowing those companies to circumvent a powerful societal check on business practices. Carlson and her organization are aiming to solve this problem, to give society at large access to this information, and more importantly, as Carlson stated, to give victims “back the voices they deserve.”

Sexual Harassment on the Campaign Trail

December 11, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The #MeToo movement has shined much-needed light on the prevalence of sexual harassment within political campaign organizations. Operating a political campaign, a transient organization — comprised of the candidate, and his or her workers, applicants, consultants and invitees – presents unique challenges. These challenges, however, do not shield campaigns the legal obligation to keep women safe from sexual harassment and misconduct within the campaign environment. Women who are sexually harassed while working in campaigns are increasingly speaking, including filing lawsuits against the campaign entities when they fall victim to sexual harassment and assault.

Most recently, it was reported that a Chicago-based political staffer, Alaina Hampton, settled a sexual harassment lawsuit against a campaign, several political entities, and the campaign supervisor who sexually harassed her. Ms. Hampton, a former political staffer and campaign manager, filed the lawsuit in March 2018. She first began working on Chicago-based political campaigns in 2012 after graduating college with a degree in political science. In or about July 2016, Ms. Hampton began working on three separate democratic campaigns for the Democratic Party of Illinois for which she was paid a salary. Kevin Quinn, Ms. Hampton’s supervisor, was a well-known, high-ranking political operative for Speaker Madigan and the Madigan Defendants. Mr. Quinn directed Ms. Hampton’s work on any one of the three campaigns to which she was assigned.

Shortly after Ms. Hampton began working with Mr. Quinn, she alleges he began to subject her to severe and pervasive sexual harassment. According to Ms. Hampton’s complaint, Mr. Quinn regularly pursued Ms. Hampton for a romantic and sexual relationship. Mr. Quinn’s purported sexually harassing behavior included repeated late-night text messages asking Ms. Hampton out, telling her she was “smoking hot,” and insisting she go out with him. Ms. Hampton asserts that she repeatedly told Mr. Quinn that she did not want to become involved with him and wanted to keep their relationship professional. Ms. Hampton alleges that despite her repeated rejections, Mr. Quinn refused to take “no” for an answer.

Court Upholds Verdict In Favor of Whistleblower Who Complained Of Misuse of Public Funds

December 5, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

A New Jersey Appellate Division has denied an appeal of a whistleblower verdict in favor of a state employee against her former employer the State Department of Corrections. The plaintiff, Meg Yatauro, brought her claim under the New Jersey whistleblower law known as the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, alleging that she suffered adverse employment action as a result of objecting to several improprieties over the period of years concerning the misuse of public funds. After a lengthy trial, the jury agreed that Ms. Yatauro was retaliated for her whistleblowing activities and awarded her $1,000,000 in damages for emotional distress and economic losses.

In this case entitled Meg Yatauro v. State of New Jersey, Gary M. Lanigan, Judy Lang, Mark Farsi, the plaintiff, Ms. Yatauro, began working for the Department of Corrections in civil service positions in 1984. After nineteen years, Ms. Yatauro was promoted to the assistant superintendent position at Northern State Prison. She was later transferred to Mid-State Correctional Facility, which she remained for two years, before being transferred to Central Reception and Assignment Facility, where she was promoted to associate administrator. In 2012, Ms. Yatauro was transferred to the Albert C. Wagner Youth Correction Facility in an administrator position, where she alleged the whistleblowing and resulting retaliation took place.

The judge permitted Ms. Yatauro to present evidence of several whistleblowing events to the jury during the trial. First, Plaintiff complained to her supervisor concerning the Chief of the Special Investigations Division having his Trenton office painted using funds out of the correction facilities budget at a time it had its own urgent need for repairs. Another complaint was aslo related to an issue of misuse of funds involving another supervisor made unauthorized credit card purchases and permitted maintenance staff to work overtime without Ms. Yatauro’s approval.

New Jersey Legislature Grapples with Amending Worker Misclassification Law

November 27, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Whether a worker is afforded protection under federal and New Jersey employment laws is often determined whether they are an employee or an independent contractor. Many employment laws provide protection only to employees, with little to no protection for independent contractors. For example, employees have access to wage theft protection, overtime pay, workers’ compensation, unemployment benefits, family leave laws, health and safety, and anti-discrimination protections, whereas independent contractors may not. In situations where a worker is misclassified as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, that worker can be deprived of the protections that they are entitled to under the law.

Classification of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor has become more and more important in our going growing technological economy. The growing accessibility of technology provides a vast digital marketplace that is now at the fingertips of millions of consumers. App-based companies, such as Uber, Lyft, and Postmates have taken advantage of this accessibility and services quickly and conveniently. To accomplish this goal, these companies typically elicit services from workers on a job-by-job basis, commonly referred to as “gigs”. As this “gig” economy expands and becomes a more viable source of income for many workers, it brings to the surface questions with respect to the classification of the workers engaging in it.

As a result of the increasing frequency of worker misclassification, New Jersey organized the Task Force on Employee Misclassification to investigate and address the issue. In its July 2019 report, the Task Force found that while prominent within the “gig” economy, this misclassification extends to workers many sectors, especially those in labor-intensive and low-wage positions. In fact, Federal studies and state-level agency audits suggest that between 10 and 30 percent of employers have misclassified employees as independent contractors, a number that has grown by upwards of 40% in recent years. In addition to depriving employees of protections under the law, these employers have avoided payment of income taxes as well as contributions to social programs, such as Social Security, on the misclassified employees.

New Jersey Transgender Equality Task Force Issues Recommendations to Address LGBTQ Discrimination

November 21, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Transgender Equality Task Force issued its report and recommendations on November 20, 2019 to address discrimination against transgender individuals of New Jersey. The New Jersey Transgender Equality Task Force, was established by Governor Murphy and its Senate and Assembly sponsors in July, 2018, convened in March, 2019 and has worked for the past six month studying a wide ranging issues of discrimination facing transgender persons, including health care, long term care, education, higher education, housing, employment and criminal justice. New Jersey’s creation of the Transgender Equality Task Force is the first in the nation.

The task force was chaired by Aaron Potenza who is the Policy and Program Manager for the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Mr. Potenza was joined by representatives from nine state agencies along with other experts, lawyers and health care professionals. The task force’s directive was to assess the legal and societal barriers to equality for transgender individuals in the State and to make recommendations to ensure equality and improve the lives of transgender individuals. The task force’s report, entitled “Addressing Discrimination Against Transgender New Jerseyans”, includes various recommendations to address LGBTQ discrimination, which include the following:

the Governor’s Office announcing a campaign to increase sexual orientation and gender identity data collection throughout New Jersey state agencies;

New York Becomes Latest State to Exempt Breastfeeding Moms from Jury Duty: Will New Jersey Follow?

November 13, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Another state has enacted a law to accommodate breastfeeding mothers called to jury duty. Last month, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed new legislation providing jury duty exemptions for breastfeeding mothers into New York law. New York joins seventeen other states and Puerto Rico who have enacted similar legislation to provide breastfeeding mothers necessary accommodations if called to jury duty. While New Jersey has amended the state’s anti-discrimination law in recent years to include pregnancy as a protected class and to require employers to provide breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace, there is currently is no specific law in place that exempts breastfeeding mother from jury duty. Whether New Jersey will soon follow New York’s lead remains to be seen.

Under the recent New York law, breastfeeding mothers may file an exemption from serving jury duty for two years, requiring only a doctor’s note affirming that they are currently breastfeeding at the time the exemption is filed. During the signing, Governor Cuomo noted, “While jury service is a critically important civic duty, we also know new moms oftentimes juggle countless responsibilities and navigate enormous adjustments in the early stages of their child’s life,” and that “This commonsense measure takes that reality into account by providing new moms the flexibility and option to postpone jury service while they care for a newborn.”

New York has followed the national trend in enacting similar laws to deal with the issue facing many new mothers in attempting to fulfill their civic duty while also needing to care for their newborn. In March 2017, a breastfeeding woman in Minnesota took to Facebook to share her horrific experience when having to serve on a jury while breastfeeding. As she stated in her Facebook post, Amanda Chandler was granted only two breaks to breastfeed by the clerk and judge and needed to do so in a bathroom. Ms. Chandler stated, “[s]eems pretty ironic that the very place which is supposed to uphold and enforce the laws would not follow or adhere to them.”

New Study Shows Uptick in College Sexual Assaults

November 7, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

A newly released study by the Association of American Universities (AAU) has shown an increase in incidents of sexual assault and misconduct on college campuses in the United States since they last published a similar report in 2015. Using data gathered for the current study came from twenty-seven universities during the 2018 school year and 2019 spring semester; comprised of over 180,000 respondents from both public and private institutions, in both undergraduate and graduate programs. The study is yet another indicator that despite the increased public attention of the #MeToo movement, women continue to be confronted with issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault at an alarming rate.

The findings of the report categorize the respondents as male, female, transgendered, or non-identified gendered, as well as whether they were graduate or undergraduate students at the time. The findings of the report show that compared to the original 2015 report there is an increased awareness across the board on what is considered to be sexual assault and misconduct amongst all students. While this is encouraging, this finding coincides with a notable increase in sexual misconduct experienced by students even as campuses nationwide have implemented more comprehensive plans to address the problem.

According to the study undergraduate women are almost three times more likely than graduate women to encountered nonconsensual sexual contact (25.9% to 9.7%). The same holds true for undergraduate men (6.8%) when compared to graduate men (2.5%). While transgendered or non-identified gendered students also found that undergraduate students (22.8%) were subjected to more nonconsensual sexual contact than graduate students (14.5%). The study has shown that older students were less likely to experience nonconsensual sexual misconduct than their younger colleagues. This is true in the comparison of undergraduate and graduate students, but also when comparing younger undergraduates to their older counterparts. First year undergraduates were found more likely to report nonconsensual sexual contact than any other year as an undergraduate, with the rate decreasing steadily with each additional year of undergraduate study.

NBC Relieves Sexually Harassed Employees From Confidentiality Obligations

October 28, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In the midst of increased public scrutiny concerning allegations of a toxic work environment, NBC has announced that it will not seek to enforce any non-disclosure agreements (“NDA”) against any former or current NBC employee who wishes to speak openly about incidents of sexual harassment. The announcement comes in response to recent reports that several former NBC employees are unwilling to speak publicly about their experiences of sexual harassment at NBC in fear that they would be breaching the NDA’s if they did so. While NBC maintains that the NDA agreements never prohibited employees from speaking out against sexual harassment, at least a few employees have been reported to believe differently. The announcement should resolve any confusion of whether former or current NBC employees’ can speak freely about the NBC work environment. It also serves as a reminder to all employers of the significant legal risks associated with attempting to use NDA’s to keep employees silent about issues of workplace discrimination.

The #Metoo movement has encouraged many victims of sexual harassment to openly and publicly discuss their experiences in working in a hostile work environment. For far too long, victims of sexual harassment have remained silent and not hold the perpetrators responsible for the grave harms caused by their actions. Many times, the decision to stay silent is voluntary. Victims would rather try to ignore what happened for fear that they will not be believed, their employer will not take any action, or even worse, suffer retaliation. In fact, according to the report of the 2016 Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, the least common response of a victim of harassment is to take some form of formal action, whether it be report the harassment internally or file a formal legal lawsuit. In fact, approximately 75% of victims of sexual harassment will never talk to management, HR or a union representative about an incident of workplace sexual harassment.

Other victims of sexual harassment cannot speak freely about their experiences because they signed a written NDA contract with their former or current employer. An NDA prohibiting an employee from discussing workplace sexual harassment is typically executed either when an employee starts his or her employment, or when the employment is separated. When starting employment, many employers require the employee to sign employment agreements that include confidentiality of company trade secrets, proprietary information and other aspects of the employment that require confidentiality. Some employers attempt to use these provisions to restrain current or former employees from disclosing incidents of workplace sexual harassment and deem them “confidential” under the NDA provision. While these confidentiality provisions in employment agreements are in most situations unenforceable as against public policy, many employees feel restrained by the provision and remain afraid to breach it. Some employees are even afraid to speak to an employment attorney for advice and counsel concerning their rights under anti-discrimination laws.

Federal Court Rules HR Director Inquiries into a Workplace Investigation as Protected Speech under First Amendment

October 25, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a public employee who alleges she was terminated by her public employer for inquiring into a complaint that she had been illegally recorded during a conversation with a union leader. In reversing the district court’s decision, the court reinforced the separation of a public employee’s speech in their capacity as a private citizen in comparison to what they say in their capacity as a public employee. This case is a reminder that public employees do not waive their First Amendment rights by accepting public employment and have job protections when they engage in protected activity under the United States Constitution.

In this case entitled Javitz v. County of Lucerne, the plaintiff, Donna Javitz’s was employed as the director of human resources for Lucerne County. During her employment, Ms. Javitz’s alleges that she made a report to the district attorney that she had allegedly been illegally recorded when she met a union leader in her official capacity. The county manager told Javitz and the district attorney to drop the matter, but Javitz followed up with questions on the status of the investigation regarding the recording. Suddenly, her relationship with her employer became rocky and Javitz was abruptly terminated. Javitz claimed that her termination was in retaliation for reporting the alleged illegal recording to the district attorney.

The county employer alleged that Javitz had been working within her capacity as a public employee when she was inquiring about the status of the investigation and therefore no First Amendment violation existed. The district court agreed and cited to the Lucerne County Code of Ethics as the source by which it found her conduct in reporting the illegal activity to be within her official capacity as a county employee. Because the action was within her duties as an employee, the District Court concluded that the report did not qualify as speech protected by the First Amendment.