Discovery Of Other Acts Of Discrimination - A Logical Progression Of The Law.
Discovery Of Other Acts Of Discrimination And Other Complaints Of Discrimination Against Employers.
Law Against Discrimination: Teacher Raises A Pretext Issue Through Statistics Comparing Treatment By Age Of Candidate.
Discovery Of Defendant's Investigation Of Plaintiff's Complaints And Other Acts Of Discrimination.
Discovery In Sexual Harassment Case May Include Complaints By Others.
Advanced Issues In New Jersey Retaliation Law. – ( March 2006)
Conducting Informal Interviews of the Employees of the Defendant Employer. – (October 2005)
Defending the Plaintiff from Overreaching Discovery (April 2005)
Increasing Plaintiff’s Damages by Limiting Offsets Against Back and Front Pay Awards. (October 2000)
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
Greenberg v. Camden County Vocational & Technical Sch., 310 N.J. Super 189 (App. Div. 1998) (The qualifications prong of the prima facie analysis must be determined objectively. No requirement that performance was meeting expectations).
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a5755-96.opn.html
Connolly v. Burger King Corp., 306 N.J. Super. 344 (App. Div. 1997) (Discovery of other claims of discrimination against employer is permissible and admissible).
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6054-96.opn.html
Quigley v. KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, 330 N.J. Super. 252 (App. Div. 2000).(Arbitration cannot be forced upon employee unless voluntary and knowing).
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a2900-98.opn.html
Leshner v. McCollister's Transportation Systems, 113 F. Supp. 2d 689 (D.N.J. 2000)(It is a Law Against Discrimination violation when an employer deliberately overworks an employee despite knowledge of health problems).
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/fed/html/cr00-3342-1.html
Gerard v. Camden County Health Services Center, 348 N.J.Super. 516 (App. Div. 2002)(For purposes of CEPA a cause of action is stated if an employee complains because she has a reasonable belief that unlawful actions were taken against a co-worker).
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a3116-00.opn.html
Stomel v. City of Camden, et al, 383 N.J. Super. 615 (App. Div. 2006)(Public defenders are considered employees for purposes of CEPA). http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a0490-04.opn.html
Stomel v. City of Camden 192 N.J. 137 (NJ Supreme Court 2007) City of Camden held liable for Mayor's retaliatory termination of public defender. Public Defender is considered an employee for purposes of CEPA
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-45-06.doc.html
See Alan arguing before the Supreme Court
http://njlegallib.rutgers.edu/supct/args/A_45_46_06.php
