The case involved Steven Kotok, who joined Bauer Media Group as CEO and President in 2016 after having led The Week magazine and The Wirecutter. His employment contract with Bauer included a severance clause that promised him payments if he was fired without cause or left for “good reason.” The contract stated that he would receive “an amount equal to the sum of (x) the Employee’s monthly Base Salary rate” plus “(y) the Annual Bonus for the year in which the termination occurs at the target bonus amount,” with these amounts “paid monthly for a period of 6 months following such termination.”

When Bauer Media was acquired by A360 in 2022, Mr. Kotok’s employment was almost immediately terminated without cause. In a court filing, he asserted that the terms he’d agreed to in 2016 meant that he would be paid six months of base salary ($275,000) plus six times his annual bonus ($1.5 million), totaling $1.775 million. A360 Media rejected this assertion and argued that the terms of the contract meant he would be paid six months of total compensation—his salary and bonus combined—for a total of $400,000. The $1.4 million difference between the two resulted in a claim being filed in May of 2022 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. It was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where it was heard by U.S. District Judge Jamel K. Semper.

In examining both the contract language and documentation of the negotiations that led to it, the judge noted that the payment terms’ clause was “not well-constructed,” leaving him to seek the parties’ intentions. He ultimately sided with A360 based on multiple factors, including that during the original contract negotiations, Mr. Kotok had proposed “12 months of total compensation (including bonus)” as his severance package. Bauer had countered with an offer of twelve months of compensation if fired within the first year, or six months if terminated later. Kotok accepted this counteroffer. 

Judge Semper wrote that it was “absurd” to think that Bauer intended the severance to jump from their initial offer of $275,000 (six months of salary) to $3.55 million (twelve months of salary plus twelve years of bonus payments) without that figure being explicitly included in the contract’s terms. He also noted that during the acquisition process, Mr. Kotok had been asked to provide A360 with all of Bauer’s severance liabilities. At that time, he provided a chart that listed his own severance as just $275,000. He later sent the company an updated chart that listed his severance as “TBD,” but which never mentioned the $1.775 million figure he later claimed in court.

Finally, the court considered that Bauer had never offered more than one year of total compensation as severance to any employee and that the company’s HR director had testified that they “would not have hired Plaintiff if he had required severance of 6 or 12 years’ worth of bonus.” 

In light of all these factors, and despite A360 arguing that he should receive nothing due to what they called his “unclean hands,” or bad faith conduct, the judge awarded Mr. Kotok the full amount he had determined was owed under the contract: $400,000 in severance payments plus $5,849.31 for unpaid health insurance premiums, totaling $405,849.31.

This case makes clear the importance of a clearly written employment agreement that spells out the numbers that high-earners are owed and the calculation by which the payment is reached. Terminology is important: When Mr. Kotok negotiated the terms of his employment contract, he’d used the term “total compensation (including bonus)” to indicate severance.  This language suggested a combined figure rather than the separate multipliers he argued in court that he was entitled to. It is also important that all answers to correspondence be carefully checked before responding: Mr. Kotok supplied and later approved documents that listed his severance as $275,000, and this worked against him in the end.

If you’re an executive negotiating the terms of a severance package, small details and clarity in contract language can make a significant difference. Having an experienced employment attorney like the professionals at Schorr Law help you negotiate and review your contract before signing can ensure that you receive the severance that you deserve.

The post Employment Contract Dispute Ends in $406,000 Award appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

Ms. Dobbs had been hired for her position in 1992 and had enjoyed her work until shortly after Gerald Fitzhugh was appointed as Superintendent in 2019. According to her original claim filed in August 2022, after his arrival, she was subjected to an “intolerable hostile work environment, rife with sexual harassment, as well as racial and age-based discrimination.” 

Her complaint asserted several instances of inappropriate and discriminatory behavior, including:

• Sexually explicit statements that Mr. Fitzhugh made to her, including statements about his sexual preferences based on skin color. On one occasion, he had told her that he was not attracted to “dark-skinned African-Americans” such as the plaintiff herself, and expressed his preference for lighter-complexioned women using terms that were sexually explicit and included graphic detail and vulgarity.
• Statements to staff members instructing them not to speak to her because of her dark skin and explicitly directing them to speak to a “light-skinned” staff member. 
• Holding up a photograph of his former secretary and telling her that “this is who I should have hired” because of her light skin color.
• Telling her that he had married a Spanish woman so that his kids would come out “light.”
• Made sexually disparaging remarks about other district staff members, and especially about those he believed to be homosexual.
• Regularly yelled and screamed at her and, on one occasion, threw papers at her to express his displeasure with her performance. He also indicated to other staff members that he would “wipe the floor” with her due to her performance.
• Constantly mocked her to younger staff members, emphasizing her birth year to highlight her age compared to theirs.

In response to the sexual, racial, and age discrimination and harassment she had been subjected to, Ms. Dobbs indicated that she had communicated to the Orange Board of Education about the hostile work environment and harassment she’d been subjected to, and that, in response, she became the victim of a series of retaliatory measures, including:

• Being placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation
• Being advised that, regardless of the outcome of the board’s investigation, she would not be permitted to return to the position that she had held for 30 years. She later learned that the position had immediately been filled by someone else.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Retaliation is one of the country’s most robust civil rights statutes. It specifically prohibits workplace harassment and discriminatory treatment based on race, color, age, and other protected characteristics, all of which were included among the violations that Ms. Dobbs asserted she had been subjected to. The law includes provisions against retaliation that were specifically designed to protect workers who exercise their rights under the law, and the NJLAD places special emphasis on preventing discrimination in public employment in recognition of the need for government employers to model appropriate workplace behavior. As such, public school districts and their boards have heightened responsibilities to comply with anti-discrimination laws. 

While Ms. Dobbs had sought a jury trial, she reached a settlement with the Board of Education earlier this year that paid a total of $250,000, with over $156,000 specified as compensation for non-economic harm. According to the agreement submitted to the court, Fitzhugh and the school board deny all of the allegations of unlawful conduct that she alleged, and denied any and all liability for her claims. The superintendent remains in his position.

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination provides crucial safeguards for workers in the state, and the significant settlement paid by the Orange Board of Education is an indication of the law’s strength and the very real outcomes that employers — and especially public employers — in the state face if found guilty of violating the law.

If you or someone you love has been the subject of discrimination, sexual harassment, or any other adverse employment action that you believe was linked to your protected status, contact our experienced employment law professionals today. We’re here to help.

The post New Jersey School District Pays $250,000 to Settle NJLAD Discrimination Claim appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

According to Officer Lee’s lawsuit filed last June in Essex County Superior Court, he has served with New Jersey Transit police since 2014 after having begun his law enforcement career with the Middlesex County Sheriff’s Department as a Sheriff’s investigator. After progressively rising through different departments based on his demonstrated competencies, he was promoted to the rank of Detective within the criminal investigations department of the NJTPD Detective Bureau.
During his employment, Officer Lee received several awards and was the subject of numerous letters of commendation from both internal and external sources for his work. His lawsuit states that he had never been suspended or received any form of major discipline throughout his career with NJTPD until September 2024, when his white supervisor, Lieutenant John Sullivan, filed an internal affairs complaint against him after having “waged a years-long campaign” of bias-based harassment and retaliation against him beginning in 2020.

According to the lawsuit, Sullivan’s discriminatory behavior took many forms. Lee claims he was subjected to repeated humiliation that damaged his professional reputation, constant threats of demotion from his detective position, and an “openly hostile” work environment. He asserts that the harassment included micromanagement of his work, exclusion from important meetings, denial of necessary resources, and “demeaning” displays of hostility in front of colleagues, and that the discrimination grew worse after he filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint with New Jersey Transit.

Lee’s claim states that after that complaint was filed, Sullivan retaliated against him by lodging numerous internal affairs complaints and subjecting him to what the lawsuit describes as “unhinged, profanity-laced rants” during phone calls.
According to Lee’s claim, he was not the first to be subjected to discriminatory behavior from Sullivan. His filing indicates that at least three other Black detectives had previously filed Equal Employment Opportunity complaints against the lieutenant, and that he had also been the subject of a sexual harassment complaint. In Lee’s complaint against NJTPD, he notes that despite this documented pattern of discriminatory behavior, Sullivan was allowed to continue in his supervisory role until his retirement on May 1, 2025, “without consequences.”

The lawsuit details dozens of incidents that demonstrate the constant barrage of harassment that Lee was subjected to by Sullivan.

• In February 2021, the lieutenant threatened to demote Lee back to patrol duty after he had followed routine protocol by sharing investigation information with another unit.
• In 2022, when Lee required medical leave following COVID-19 vaccination, Sullivan attempted to limit his duties despite medical clearance for nearly all responsibilities.
• He mocked him for having worn a suit to a professional conference, constantly intimated to his fellow detectives and others within the agency that he was lazy, and insisted on controlling and checking in on his work, even while he was off duty and while the detective was on sick leave.
• He denied him access to investigative resources, including departmental computer systems that were available to white detectives.
• He sent him to work alone on assignments considered dangerous, for which white detectives were only sent with others.

Citing the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), Detective Lee accuses the defendants of discrimination based on race and disability, as well as of retaliation. It specifically notes the failures of NJTPD to respond appropriately and in a timely way to his internal complaints and of failure to apply their EEO policies. Under NJLAD, employers have an affirmative duty to maintain workplaces free from discriminatory harassment and must take prompt, effective action to address complaints. The statute also holds employers like NJTPD responsible for harassment from supervisors, even if they claim ignorance of the discriminatory behavior. In this case, the department was aware of the issues involving Lieutenant Sullivan, but chose not to act for years, allowing the supervisor to embark on a campaign of retaliation that only ended seven months after Lee had filed a complaint, when Sullivan was removed from the Detective Bureau and reassigned back to the Patrol Division. Sullivan retired three months later.
Detective Lee’s attorney noted his client’s dedication to public service, stating, “He is dedicated, he’s honest, he wants to serve the public. He is the kind of police officer that we need. But instead of being valued for that, he shows up to work and is subject to bias-based harassment by a superior officer, and it’s all based on the color of his skin.”

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is recognized as one of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the nation, covering more protected classes and providing more extensive remedies for victims than almost any other state. It also places stronger responsibilities on employers to prevent and address discriminatory conduct and retaliation. If you believe you have been a victim of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or another adverse workplace act, we can help. Contact us today to set up a time for us to meet and discuss your situation.

The post Black Police Detective Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against NJ Transit appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

The woman, Christine Crumb, was hired by Target Corporation as a General Merchandise Team Member in March 2017. According to her complaint, the discrimination against her began shortly after she began exploring her gender identity in early 2020 and intensified when she began presenting as female in March 2022. At that point, she began enduring what she describes as “relentless bullying and ridicule” from coworkers and supervisors at the Sewell, New Jersey, store. Despite repeatedly reporting the harassment to supervisors and the company’s human resources department, the harassment continued, ultimately leading to her resignation in July 2023.

The woman’s lawsuit presents a detailed list of dozens of incidents spanning three years, including multiple employees, including store supervisors, consistently and purposefully misgendering her, calling her “man,” “sir,” and “brother” despite her wearing a name tag that clearly indicated her preferred pronouns. Her lawsuit claims that several supervisors referred to her as a “drag queen,” with one executive team lead reportedly telling her, “I haven’t seen you come into work in drag in a while” in front of numerous witnesses, including human resources personnel.

The woman’s complaint also details several incidents of sexual harassment, including requests from coworkers to touch her breasts “to see if they feel like the real thing” and graphic questions about gender-affirming surgery. She describes one particularly disturbing incident that involved a coworker allegedly asking Crumb to engage in sexual activity with him and a friend, and another in which a coworker eyed her body up and down and said that if he worked in her department while she was presenting as female, he’d “be in so much trouble.”

Beyond this direct harassment, the woman’s lawsuit describes her experience of feeling increasingly marginalized at work, as coworkers questioned her right to identify as transgender, telling her she wasn’t “androgynous enough to present female” and that she wasn’t worthy of having breasts. The hostile environment became so severe that a health condition that led to tremors and seizures grew worse, and that until the time she left the company, she regularly took bathroom breaks to cry.
The former employee’s claim indicates that despite multiple reports to the store’s management and human resources department, Target failed to take meaningful corrective action and that instead of addressing the problem, the company retaliated by cutting her hours and scheduling her for shifts she had previously avoided.

In May 2023, the woman sent an anonymous email to Target’s CEO, Brian Cornell. She detailed the discrimination she’d experienced, including being called a drag queen, repeated misgendering, sexual harassment, and invasive questions about her medical procedures. According to the complaint, Cornell never responded to the email. She also called the company’s integrity hotline about the ongoing discrimination and harassment that she’d been experiencing at work, but during that call, the employee managing the hotline said that they sincerely doubted that the discrimination and harassment that she was describing could have taken place.
The woman’s lawsuit cites five separate causes of action: discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, retaliation under Title VII, discrimination under New Jersey state law, retaliation under New Jersey state law, and aiding and abetting under New Jersey state law. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, among other protected characteristics. Though this law was written and passed before transgender rights became an issue, federal courts have interpreted sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender individuals because it treats people differently based on their sex assigned at birth versus their gender identity.
The lawsuit also cites the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), which provides even broader protections than federal laws do. New Jersey leads the country in its extension of protected characteristics to explicitly include “gender identity or expression.” The NJLAD prohibits discrimination in employment based on numerous characteristics, including sex, gender identity, and expression, and covers all employers in New Jersey, regardless of size. In addition to compensatory damages, it allows plaintiffs to receive attorney’s fees and punitive damages, too.

In her lawsuit against Target, the woman is seeking compensatory damages for emotional distress, lost wages, and harm to professional reputation, as well as punitive damages based on her allegations that the conduct was willful and malicious. She also claims ongoing physical and emotional effects from the alleged discrimination, including anxiety, depression, and difficulty eating and sleeping.

Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination offers protection against workplace discrimination and harassment. If you’ve been a victim and need information on the relief available to you, contact Schorr Law today to set up a time for us to speak.

The post Transgender Employee Files Federal Lawsuit Against Target Corporation appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

The post Alan H. Schorr Named to NJ Super Lawyers For 2025 in Employment Litigation appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

According to the claim filed in Essex County Superior Court in New Jersey, William D. Brown, Jr. is a veteran of the Navy Seals who served in the Iraq War.  Upon his return to civilian life, he was hired to work in the firm’s bankruptcy group. He worked there for six and a half years before being fired after having posted a comment on the social media platform LinkedIn decrying “gangsta rap” lyrics and violence in the Muslim world. Though McCarter & English indicated his termination was in response to his post promoting negative stereotypes, Brown claims that the real reason he was fired was that he had previously complained about veterans being excluded from the firm’s diversity efforts, as well as about the unequal pay that he was receiving.

Mr. Brown’s complaint alleged numerous incidents of a hostile work environment and discrimination from his tenure at McCarter & English, including:

• A 2019 episode of sexual harassment in which an Equity Partner at the firm inappropriately touched him and made suggestive comments. He reported the incident to another partner and an associate and felt that the incident prevented him from accessing a firm-provided dinner for fear of further sexual harassment.
• A 2019 episode in which an Equity Partner at the firm unexpectedly asked him how many people he had killed while serving as a Navy SEAL. Mr. Brown indicates that this incident and other discriminatory beliefs, ideals, and language in the workplace indicated that his colleagues “feared, loathed, and discounted [him] as a mere ‘killer.’”
• Being excluded from the firm’s Annual Diversity Retreat throughout his 6 ½ year tenure despite his status as a well-known veteran advocate and veteran himself, and therefore a minority in the firm’s workplace.
• Despite his inquiries and repeated requests, the firm failed to publish an email or other communication honoring and remembering those lost in the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks along with other emails they sent during the same period promoting, celebrating, and recalling various causes and historical events. When he directly inquired why the DEI Committee had acknowledged LGBT History Month but not 9/11, the response he received inferred that he was homophobic.
• In light of his own extremely low salary as an Associate who had been with the firm for six years compared to the base pay for first-year hires, Mr. Brown published a post on LinkedIn advocating for fair and equal pay for veterans. The following day, he was called into a conference room regarding the post. He was asked whether he was mentally sound and told they were concerned he might hurt someone despite his post containing no violent language or visual depiction of violence.

Mr. Brown indicated several more incidents that he claims “go against the strong public policy of non-discrimination, fair treatment, and support for veterans and military service members. He claims that the firm had distinct and separate standards of conduct for those within the firm “who adhered to political left orthodoxy” and those “who happened to not endorse the same leftist worldview.” As an example, he said that he had been asked to delete a LinkedIn post featuring a Newark federal courtroom, while another attorney from the firm put up a similar post that was praised. He also alleges that the firm tried to have him uninvited from a Rutgers University event and refused to honor his request for a referral for a fellow Navy SEAL who had been tied to the January 6 riots.

Mr. Brown claims that despite him being part of the bankruptcy group, he was reassigned to represent clients accused of child sexual abuse allegations. He believes this was part of a pressure campaign to make him resign.

The lawsuit accuses his former employer of violating the Conscientious Employee Protection Act and wrongful termination. He is seeking reinstatement, compensation for damages, and injunctive relief.

Discrimination in the workplace can take many forms and impact underrepresented groups of all kinds. If you believe that you have suffered an adverse employment action based on your membership in a protected group, the experienced professionals at Schorr Law can help. Contact us today to set up a time for us to meet.

The post Attorney Accuses Law Firm of Discriminatory Firing Based on His Status as a Veteran appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

On December 4, 2024 I presented my annual Employment Law Year in Review seminar for the Burlington County CLE Xtravaganza, along with Janice Dubler, Esq. and Daniel Thornton, Esq. On December 11, 2024, we made our annual Employment Law Year in Review seminar for the National Employment Lawyers Association – New Jersey in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

The post Alan Schorr Presents the Employment Law Year in Review appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

In passing the law, New Jersey joins New York, Washington, D.C., and others in adopting transparency measures. In addition to this protection, New Jersey employees will also benefit from a minimum wage increase to $15.49 per hour on January 1, 2025.

The new law applies to businesses with ten or more employees over 20 weeks annually, including employment agencies operating in New Jersey or accepting applications from the state. Temporary help and consulting firms registered with the Division of Consumer Affairs are exempt from listing compensation in postings but must disclose it at interviews or hiring.

Employers must include wage or salary ranges, as well as a general overview of benefits and compensation programs, in all job postings for new roles or transfer opportunities. While these ranges set a baseline, higher compensation can be offered at the time of hire.
Violations can result in civil penalties starting at $300 for a first offense and $600 for subsequent infractions. Failure to meet posting or notification requirements constitutes a single violation per promotion, regardless of the number of platforms used, and notably, may form the basis of a Conscientious Employee Protection Act claim if an employee feels they’ve been the victim of retaliation for reporting failure to comply.

If you feel you missed an opportunity for promotion because your employer failed to post a position appropriately, and your complaint resulted in an adverse employment action, you may be eligible to take legal action. Contact the employment attorneys at Schorr Law today to set up a time to explore your options.

The post New Jersey’s New Pay Transparency Law appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

Ms. Glenn alleges that she was formerly a program manager for the New Jersey Board of Tree Experts, an agency that falls under the oversight of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and which is tasked with regulating tree care practices across the state. Hired by the board in March 2023, Ms. Glenn alleges that her problems at the agency began shortly after she was hired when, as a 30-year-old Black woman, she was subjected to racially insensitive remarks from two white administrative assistants who had reportedly been on the board’s staff for approximately 30 years.

Ms. Glenn alleges that she raised concerns about comments the women made about Hispanic license applicants and non-English speakers, as well as about their refusal to comply with procedures that she had created. The suit alleges that they refused to comply with the procedures she’d created or to work on tasks she’d assigned, and that during a group discussion, they had “openly and loudly announced that ‘Amanda Glenn is too young to qualify as a manager,’ and that ‘it will never work out with her being the manager.’ Despite her previous management experience and position, they publicly pronounced their refusal to change their negative behaviors.

The suit alleges that in October 2023, a colleague confided to Ms. Glenn that a security camera had been installed in the office to monitor her work. Upon investigation, she found a Ring camera camouflaged with tape and positioned on her desk within the office space that she shared with two other employees. It had initially been hidden behind a computer but was later relocated to a spot on a cabinet that offered a better view of her desk and that of another employee.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Glenn asserts that she had never consented to being surveilled and had not been notified of the presence of the camera by the board. She also notes that when confronted with the presence of the camera, the board’s management claimed they’d been installed to monitor Alcoholics Anonymous meetings that were held in the office – a practice that Ms. Glenn points out is illegal.

Ms. Glenn argues that the camera monitored her as she conducted both sensitive job-related tasks and personal activities. She also accuses them of retaliation in response to her complaints about the administrative staff’s racial remarks and the camera itself. Among the retaliatory actions were a restriction of her remote work privileges, a reduction in her hours, and public criticism of her in staff emails.

Her lawsuit accuses the board of creating a hostile work environment in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, as well as violating the state’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act. She is seeking damages for emotional distress, lost wages, and punitive compensation.

If you are confronted with a hostile work environment that violates your privacy or is discriminatory, you need to know your rights. The experienced employment attorneys at Schorr and Associates are here to help. Contact us today to set up a time to discuss your situation and the options available to you.

The post Lawsuit Alleges Workplace Discrimination and Unlawful Surveillance appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

The judge’s decision was handed down last week following an appeal followed by Ryan LLC, a tax services firm in Dallas, Texas, and supported by several other businesses and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The group had argued that banning the use of non-compete agreements would cause “serious and irreparable injuries” to their businesses, citing concerns including putting their confidential information at risk and eliminating impediments to competitor recruitment of their employees.

Employers who favor the use of non-compete agreements may be breathing a sigh of relief, but their celebrations may be misplaced. Poorly drafted non-compete clauses are still largely unenforceable, especially in states like New Jersey that only allow non-compete agreements if they are “reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic limits.” Employees who believe that they are being unreasonably kept from seeking advancement can seek legal help to void a non-compete agreement, forcing any employer that tries to enforce a restrictive covenant to pass the three-part test that the state has created to determine whether its language is reasonable.

New Jersey employers trying to enforce a non-compete agreement need to prove the following three points:

• That the language of the agreement is meant to protect the employer’s legitimate interests such as maintaining trade secrets, business information, or customer relationships.
• That the terms of the agreement don’t cause undue hardship on the employee.
• That the restrictions imposed by the non-compete agreement must not harm the public interest.

Courts that are asked to determine whether the terms of a non-compete agreement examine several elements of the situation to determine whether its terms are unreasonable. These factors include:

• The nature of the business
• The role of the employee
• The duration and geographic limitations imposed by the contract’s terms

Much of the controversy that has revolved around non-compete agreements — and which drove the FTC to attempt to impose the federal ban in the first place — arose from businesses imposing non-compete restrictions on minimum-wage employees. The examples that were reported in national newspapers and by other media seemed punitive and mean-spirited and kept people from using skills that they’d worked hard to learn and master to advance themselves. The laws in New Jersey and other states reject any language that prevents individuals from pursuing their ability to make a living or pursue their profession or that stifles innovation.

Judge Brown’s decision in response to the business advocates’ appeal rested on her opinion that the government agency had gone beyond its legal authority in issuing a national ban. She wrote in part,

The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition. The role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency thinks it should do.

The FTC’s ban on non-compete agreements was scheduled to take effect as of September 4th, 2024, and many companies across the country had already taken steps to revise the language in their existing restrictive covenants to make them more reasonable. Though the companies that prevailed in having the law struck are praising the judge’s decision as preservation of the “economic freedom of business and their employees to enter into non-compete agreements,” the FTC under the Biden administration is determining whether to appeal the decision, and will continue to address noncompete agreements “through case-by-case enforcement actions.”

If you have concerns about the enforcement of an employment agreement that you were asked to sign, the employment attorneys at Schorr Law are here to help. Contact our experienced advocates today to set up a time for us to discuss your situation.

The post In Blow to Employees Seeking Relief, Federal Judge Rejects FTC Ban appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

Non-compete agreements have long been controversial. Though purportedly intended to protect a company’s business interests, in recent years they have been misused in ways that have kept workers from seeking or accepting a new job or from operating a business and penalizing workers who attempt to do so. In response to a growing outcry about this practice, the FTC reviewed allegations of abuse and decided that non-compete clauses had come to represent unfair methods of competition. They banned the use of new non-compete agreements after September 4 and ordered that existing non-competes with workers other than senior executives are not enforceable after that date.

Despite this, three weeks before the ban goes into effect, Johnson & Johnson Vision’s AMO Sales and Service subsidiary filed a lawsuit to enforce the restrictive covenant in its former marketing director’s employment contract, noting that Ms. Schneider, who resigned after six years of employment, was leaving to join STAAR Surgical LLC, a direct competitor that the company claims has targeted its employees for recruitment and hiring over the last two years.

J&J’s filing claims that “STAAR aims to essentially hire the entire J&J Vision marketing team at a critical time for J&J Vision’s business and in the midst of its execution of its short-term and long-term strategic plans,” and that the company had already recruited and hired the company’s former VP of Marketing and Connected Commerce; its former Senior Marketing Director; and that the recruiting and hiring of Ms. Schneider was part of a “package deal” that included another former J&J Vision Marketing Director. The suit alleges that with the addition of Schneider, STAAR had “composed an entire marketing team headed by the top marketing leads from J&J Vision.”

The lawsuit specifies that Ms. Schneider’s possession of “confidential and competitively valuable information” and knowledge of “competitive marketing strategies for surgical and non-surgical refractive corrective solutions developed and acquired only through her employment within J&J Vision” presents an immediate threat to J&J Vision’s confidential and trade secret information, and that her assumption of a role at STAAR is an unequivocal breach of the Employee Secrecy, Intellectual Property, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation restrictive covenants that she’d signed as part of her employment agreement with J&J Vision. That contract restricted her from going to a J&J Vision competitor or soliciting the company’s clients for 18 months following termination of her employment.

The lawsuit goes into significant detail about the direct knowledge of confidential plans that Ms. Schneider possessed when she left the company and accepted the position with STARR, as well as of STARR’s position as a direct competitor to J&J Vision. It indicates that after Ms. Schneider resigned from J&J Vision, STAAR’s attorney sent a letter to J&J Vision notifying her former employer that she had been hired to serve as Director of Product Marketing for the Americas.

Within a week of receipt of that letter, J&J Vision responded with concerns about her obligations under the non-compete agreement and indicated that they did not consent to her taking the new role. The company also requested the immediate return of her company-issued laptop and provided a prepaid FedEx box and label to do so, but the device was not returned until almost two weeks later. Mediation of the issue was attempted but was not successful, resulting in the filing of the lawsuit.

Ms. Schneider is a resident of North Carolina and was based there during her time with J&J Vision; her employment with STAAR will continue to be based in North Carolina. AMO Sales and Service is a Delaware Corporation with a principal place of business in California and is part of J&J Vision which is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Still, the claim was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey because that was the jurisdiction agreed to under both Schneider’s Non-Compete Agreement and Long-Term Incentive agreement with J&J Vision.

The federal ban on non-compete agreements resulted from widely held beliefs that restrictive covenants were being used punitively, particularly against low-level employees with few options. The case against Ms. Schneider involves an employee in possession of high-level, highly-sensitive confidential information that J&J Vision claims if used by or diverted to a competitor would lead to irreparable harm, as well as accusations that STAAR has engaged in disproportionate targeting of J&J Vision’s employees to drive competition.

J&J Vision is seeking enforcement of the terms of Ms. Schneider’s Non-Compete Agreement and the post-employment covenants in her Long-Term Incentive plan. The company is also asking for the immediate return of all documents, records, and materials containing or reflecting confidential information or work products and access for a forensic vendor to any personal device and personal online storage account belonging to Ms. Schneider, at her expense. The company is also seeking compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

If you are facing legal action alleging a breach of an employment contract, the attorneys at Schorr Law are here to help. Contact us today to learn more about putting our knowledge and experience to work for you.

The post Months Before Non-Compete Clause Bank Takes Effect, J&J Sues Ex-Employee appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

The attorney general’s lawsuit explains that the organization ran a hiring hall for which it had created a referral book. Union members were asked to sign the book, and then as job opportunities came in, the leadership was supposed to refer the assignments to members in order of their signatures within the book. This first-come, first-served procedure was akin to the workers standing in line and waiting their turn as jobs came in, but in reality, the union leadership made a regular practice of skipping over Black members and assigning the jobs to non-Blacks who had signed up for jobs later.

The lawsuit against the union states that this practice led to “lost income,” and that those whose names had been skipped over missed out on hundreds of hours of work. It claims that Black members “were denied significant professional opportunities and experienced emotional distress.”

The suit against the union called the practice of bypassing Black members in favor of non-Blacks systematic: It cites 54 out of 348 times that Black members’ names were skipped over to give job assignments to non-Black members, and calculates that this resulted in some Black members missing nearly a month’s worth of work opportunities. “Black union members collectively lost out on almost a year’s worth of work within those 14 months because of Local 11’s discriminatory employment referral practices.”

Though the referral system described in the lawsuit is no longer in use, the state claims that the new system does nothing to prevent Black workers from being passed over because of their identity or race or to correct and protect against these or other discriminatory practices.

The state began its investigation of Local 11 after the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights received a complaint from a former union member — a black female ironworker who had left the organization in 2017. The complainant, identified in the state’s lawsuit by the initials J.G., reported having frequently been called the N-word, being smacked on the backside, and being locked in bathrooms for hours, repeatedly. Though she reported this conduct to union leadership at least six times, no corrective action was taken.

Upon further investigation, the state found that racial slurs, homophobic language, and sexist language were the norm within the union’s workers and its leadership, and that complaints from other members were ignored or led to retaliation.
J.G., who left the union as a result of the racist and sexist harassment she was subjected to, indicated that she took appropriate action and reported the behaviors to the union’s business manager. The result was that she was yelled at and received one-day job assignments instead of more favorable, long-term assignments.

J.G. was not the only victim cited in the attorney general’s report. A man who worked as a business agent for the union also reported harassment and subsequent retaliation for having complained. He reportedly told leadership about having been subjected to homophobic slurs and having pornographic photos placed on his desk and in his work bag. In response, the union brought in a law firm to investigate his claims, but rather than look into the harassment he’d reported, the attorney focused on claims that he had failed to perform his work assignments.

In a news release, the Attorney General stated, “No one should be subjected to racism, discrimination, or harassment in the workplace, and we are committed to rooting out such despicable conduct. If you violate our laws, we will hold you accountable. We do not tolerate discrimination in New Jersey.”

The state’s actions in this case are a strong demonstration that the state of New Jersey does not tolerate discrimination or harassment based on race, gender, age, or being a member of any other protected class. If you have been a victim of an adverse employment action in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and you’d like to discuss your rights under the law, contact our experienced employment discrimination attorneys today.

The post Attorney General Pursues Ironworkers Union’s NJLAD Violations appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

Too often, when New Jersey companies are told that a company policy violates the state’s Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), they respond with, “That’s not what we meant,” or, “We didn’t think of that.” The regulation change that Platkin and the state’s Division on Civil Rights have proposed will make clear that companies can no longer use excuses for policies that deny equal opportunity. He says that the clarifications “will help make New Jersey a more equitable and welcoming state for all of our residents.”

New Jersey is among the most progressive states in the nation when it comes to protecting the rights of members of protected classes, which for employment include:

• Race or color
• Religion or creed
• National origin, nationality, or ancestry
• Sex, pregnancy, or breastfeeding
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity or expression
• Disability
• Marital status or domestic partnership/civil union status
• Liability for military service
• Age, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, the refusal to submit to a genetic test or make available to an employer the results of a genetic test.

According to Sundeep Iyer, the director of New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights, the state regulation’s protections go beyond prohibiting conduct that intentionally discriminates or singles out a particular group for different treatment. It also addresses policies that seem neutral on their face, but that result in disparate impact based on an employee’s membership in a protected group. As things stand now, though the state’s regulation against disparate impact discrimination prohibits policies like that described above – which discriminate against anybody whose religion dictates wearing a turban, a hijab, a yarmulke, or any other head covering — a company could plead that its “no headwear” rule was meant to be neutral, with a purpose of stopping employees from wearing hats printed with controversial messaging. If adopted, the proposed new regulation will make it clear that companies will no longer be able to plead innocence of their liability for disparate impact discrimination.

The proposed regulation does not represent a change in New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination: Rather, it codifies what has been established through state and federal case law, explaining the policies and practices that violate the state’s existing policy. Disparate impact claims were recognized as a violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination by the state’s Supreme Court back in 2005 when their ruling on a gender discrimination case included language that defined disparate impact as involving “employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that, in fact, fall more harshly on one group than another, and cannot be justified by business necessity.”

Working from this basis and in an attempt to eliminate excuses, the proposed change to the regulation’s language clarifies the legal standard for disparate impact discrimination, as well as the burden of proof that an employee would need to meet for a disparate impact discrimination claim to be viable. Employees “challenging a practice or policy of a covered entity must show that the practice or policy has a disparate impact on members of a protected class” and must do so using evidence that is neither speculative nor hypothetical. The new language will also cover the other areas addressed by the NJLAD; housing, places of public accommodation, financial lending, and contracts.

A copy of the proposed regulations is available here. The rule is subject to a notice and comment period, which will remain open until August 2, 2024. All comments on the proposed rules are due on or before that date. Comments can be submitted electronically at regulations@njcivilrights.gov.

Discrimination is a complex subject. It can be difficult to distinguish between policies and actions that are purposely discriminatory, accidentally discriminatory, or non-discriminatory. If you are being affected by a policy or adverse employment action and you need assistance with determining whether your rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination have been violated, contact our experienced employment discrimination attorneys today.

The post Proposed Regulations to NJLAD Language Would Clarify Specifics of Law appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Kline alleges that he began facing discriminatory actions six years ago, in 2018. He says that Fox Rothschild firm chair Mark L. Morris, who is named as a defendant in his claim, had objected when the firm eliminated a previously existing age limit of 72 for equity partners. He points to his demotion to income partner and acceptance of a pay cut to $200,000 when he was 73 as the beginning of the firm’s illegal actions. He says that his title was changed again the following year when his title changed to Assistant General Counsel and his pay was dropped to $150,000. When he addressed his concerns about these pay and title cuts to Morris, Kline claims he was told that he would “never receive a raise.”

In a statement by Kline’s attorney to the press, there was no legitimate basis provided for the reduction in his compensation, and at the same time that these actions were taking place, the firm was internally praising his knowledge. “The firm was championing my client as an expert in his field and a mentor to more junior attorneys while simultaneously paying him less than more junior attorneys, and then forcing him to retire.”

The victim accuses the firm of illegally offsetting his diminished cash flow by beginning to pay him a $500,000 vested retirement benefit, though he had not yet retired. He cites his continued legal work for the firm, including leading preparations for the passage of the Corporate Transparency Act and generating new business. He also notes that in 2020, while the firm was making its discriminatory moves, he received the Unsung Heroes Award from the New Jersey Law Journal.

Despite his efforts to retain his position and his income, Fox Rothschild elected to end their relationship in the spring of 2023. At that time, he was called into a meeting with the firm’s general counsel and told that unlike in previous years, when he had been asked at remote meetings with Mr. Morris to sign single-year contracts that allowed him to remain at the firm, he was not being invited back. The terminology that was used was a “non-renewal of his contract and not a firing.” In objecting to this arrangement, Kline was successful in negotiating a contract for an additional year, but that document included clauses indicating that he would retire upon its expiration in March 2024. Kline’s lawsuit points to his signature of this contract as being provided “under mental anguish and economic duress.” Though he left the firm upon his one-year contract’s expiration, he says that his departure from the firm was not voluntary.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination specifically prohibits adverse employment actions based on an employee’s age. If you believe that you have been the victim of discrimination based on your age or any other factor protected under the state’s laws, the attorneys at Schorr Law can help. Contact us today to set up a time to meet and discuss the specifics of your situation.

The post Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against New Jersey Law Firm Office and Firm Chair by Ex-Corporate Chief appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

The decision followed the years-long legal journey of a former Neptune Township police officer. Christine Savage filed a lawsuit against the police department, Neptune Township, and named individuals for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation in December 2013. That claim was resolved by a settlement agreement in 2014, and Savage filed a second suit in 2016 that accused the same defendants of having violated the settlement agreement and engaging in continuing, and “intensified” sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

In 2020, the parties entered into a second settlement agreement, which contained a clause prohibiting either party from making or causing anyone else to make statements “regarding the past behavior of the parties” that would “tend to disparage or impugn the reputation of any party.” The settlement went on to define what was covered by the non-disparagement provision.

Later that year, Ms. Savage was interviewed for a television news show. During that interview, there were several comments made that the defendants viewed as a violation of the non-disparagement provision, including Ms. Savage saying, “You abused me for about eight years” and the interviewer saying, “Savage says the harassment and retaliation intensified with bogus disciplinary charges.” The police department, the township, and other named parties filed a motion to enforce the second settlement agreement, and their motion was granted based on the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination’s omission of non-disparagement in their policy barring non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements. The Appellate Division affirmed that decision, and Ms. Savage then filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court, which overturned the trial court and Appellate court’s decisions.

In its ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court noted that the section of the state’s Law Against Discrimination was enacted to ensure that survivors of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment had the legal right to tell their story, regardless of the terms of any settlement agreement. Accordingly, they determined that non-disparagement clauses were against public policy and could not be enforced, just as is true of any non-disclosure or confidentiality terms that might be included in a settlement agreement.

The high court took the time to closely examine the language of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(a), which explicitly states that any provision in an employment contract or settlement agreement that “has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment” is “against public policy and unenforceable even if the details relating to a claim disparage an employer. The justices determined that labels like “non-disclosure” or “non-disparagement” do not control the meaning of the policy as much as the answer to the question about its purpose.

Concerning the specific case and the police department and township’s argument, the justices point out that the non-disparagement clause in the settlement agreement would bar the speech protected by the statute and have the effect of concealing details relating to claims of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in direct contradiction of the LAD. The justices also ordered that the defendants in the case were not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

This decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court is another example of the many protections that the state provides against discrimination or harassment in the workplace. If you have concerns that you’d like to discuss, contact Schorr Law today to set up a time for us to address the specifics of your circumstances.

The post New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Against Non-Disparagement Clauses appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

According to Ms. Field, she was hired by Coca-Cola in 2018 by its Office of Lattin Affairs, which was later dissolved during a company-wide reorganization. Having received numerous company accolades, positive reviews, and performance bonuses, she was retained as an employee and transferred to the Public Policy & Government Relations Team as Senior Manager. From March 2021 through the end of the year, she reported to three different supervisors, ending with Ms. Zinicola, who was named Group Director of her department in August.

By December 2021, Ms. Field’s alarm at the mistreatment and behavior directed at her caused her to contact the Director of Human Resources to file a complaint. At that time, her specific concerns surrounded inappropriate remarks that Ms. Zinicola had made regarding race and ethnicity, including to some of the company’s national and non-profit partners. Just two months later she was placed by Ms. Zinicola on a performance improvement plan (PIP), which Ms. Field believes was in retaliation for her complaint. She returned to Human Resources regarding the PIP and asked that it be removed, but her request was denied.

Based on this, Ms. Field requested a meeting with the Director of Human Resources and an Employee Relations Consultant, but her concerns were dismissed and she was told that the PIP would move forward, though the timeline might be adjusted if she demonstrated progress. No such adjustment was ever made, and an investigation of her complaint reportedly found no evidence of retaliation or wrongdoing.

To manage the tasks imposed by the PIP as well as her long-standing job responsibilities, Ms. Field worked long hours and endured significant stress and physical pain. At the same time, she continued to endure further demands, criticism, and blame for others’ shortcomings despite demonstrating that the problems she was being blamed for were not her doing.

Despite significant challenges, Ms. Field completed the work that she had been assigned and presented it to Ms. Zinicola and Human Resources with a PowerPoint presentation and accompanying documentation. While she received positive feedback from others, Ms. Zinicola withheld comment, and shortly thereafter informed her that she would not receive a bonus for her work in 2021. This was a significant departure from previous years when she had received numerous bonuses and accolades from both internal and external stakeholders. Shortly after being notified that she would receive no bonus, she found herself locked out of the company’s phone and computer system and was informed that she was being terminated for failure to meet the expectations of the PIP plan. No further information was provided other than that her health benefits would expire that day.

In response to these behaviors by her supervisor and the company, Ms. Field filed her lawsuit, which accused both Ms. Zinicola and Coca-Cola of creating a hostile work environment in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination; retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination; and wrongful termination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and of Piercev. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation, which protects against termination for protected activities such as whistleblowing or informing Human Resources of inappropriate and demeaning comments.

In response to the claim, which was filed in Hudson County Superior Court, Coca-Cola has removed it to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey based on diversity of citizenship.

We will be monitoring the case closely. If you or someone you love has been the victim of this type of hostile environment, retaliation, or wrongful termination based on being in a protected class, our experienced employment attorneys can help. Contact Schorr Law today to learn more.

The post Lawsuit Filed Against Coca-Cola Alleges Violations of NJLAD appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

While some non-compete contracts theoretically protect legitimate business interests, in recent years they have been used in increasingly restrictive ways. Workers ranging from fast-food employees to financial services personnel have found themselves prevented from pursuing other employment in the same industry or within a reasonable distance from their homes, and this has suppressed their ability to earn higher compensation and seek better opportunities. Studies investigating the impact of non-competes found that they suppress both wages and upward mobility.

The new rule was originally proposed in January of 2023, and at the time the agency invited public comment on its impact. After receiving and reviewing over 26,000 submissions as well as empirical research on how non-competes affect competition, the commission adopted the rule. A summary of the ban’s provisions sets forth that non-competes represent “an unfair method of competition.” Though it allows existing non-competes with senior executives to remain in force, it requires employers to notify all other workers with existing non-competes in place that they are no longer enforceable.

The FTC rule defines a non-compete clause as “a term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from (1) seeking or accepting work in the United States with a different person where such work would begin after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition; or (2) operating a business in the United States after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition.”

The new rule will become law 120 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which is expected to happen in the next few days, but it is also expected that several entities will attempt to block it from being enacted. Despite business objections, many industry professionals have praised the ban, and FTC chair Lina M. Khan issued a statement saying that it “will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business or bring a new idea to market.” The FTC’s research indicates that the ban could facilitate creation of 8,500 start-ups in a year and up to $488 billion in increased wages for workers over the next ten years. The Rules can be accessed and read here. If you need information about your rights under an existing non-compete clause, the experienced employment attorneys at Schorr Law are here to help. Contact us today to set up a time for us to meet.

The post FTC Announces Long-Awaited Ban on Non-Compete Clauses appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

The case was filed by Dr. Esther Ogunyemi against her former employer, Garden State Medical Center, the Center for Spine and Joint Relief, and Dr. Dharam Mann. Dr. Ogunyemi claimed to have been sexually assaulted at a gathering at Dr. Mann’s house, and two weeks after having reported the incident, indicating to her employer that she was suffering distress as a result of the assault. She was fired shortly afterward and subsequently filed a complaint alleging violations of the Law Against Discrimination, sexual assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In response, her former employer pointed to a clause within the employment agreement that she had signed, mandating arbitration.

When the case went to trial, the court found that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract and called the contract valid and enforceable. They rejected the notion that section 12.7 of the NJLAD —which says that any provision in an employment contract that waives substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination retaliation or harassment goes against public policy — and told the doctor that she needed to adhere to the contract’s arbitration requirement.

Dr. Ogunyemi then appealed that decision, arguing to the appellate court that the terms in the arbitration clause were ambiguous. She also maintained that Section 12.7 of the NJLAD prohibited the waiver of a trial.

On review of the case, the appellate division’s judges ultimately agreed that the employment contract’s clause was unenforceable, though they reached their conclusions for different reasons. Two of the judges found the clause, which encompassed 887 words in 36 unbroken lines, “difficult to decipher” and containing “mutually inconsistent means for dispute resolution” that left it unenforceable as a matter of law. The third judge wrote a concurring opinion that also found the employment contract unenforceable, but because she agreed with Dr. Ogunyemi’s statutory argument that the provision improperly waived her right to a jury trial under Section 12.7.

If you have been the victim of workplace discrimination or harassment or believe that you are being improperly required to participate in arbitration of a discrimination or harassment issue, the attorneys at Schorr Law can help. Contact us today to learn more.

The post New Jersey Appellate Division Rejects Mandatory Arbitration Clause appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

Non-disparagement clauses specifically prohibit you from saying anything negative about the company that you work for. They can be found in employment agreements, separation agreements, and even settlement agreements. But an appeal heard by New Jersey’s Supreme Court may establish an important precedent within the state, as a former employee and her employer argue about whether a 2019 state law barring agreements that prohibit workers from discussing claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment also precludes non-disparagement clauses.

The case involves Christine Savage, who in 2014 filed a claim alleging sexual misconduct and harassment by her male supervisors in the Neptune Township Police Department. She received $330,000 as part of a settlement of that case and later filed a discrimination lawsuit that settled out of court in 2020. The second case saw her receive $248,560 in damages and other financial benefits and included a non-disparagement agreement barring statements about past behaviors that might damage either party’s reputation.

Shortly after the second settlement agreement was reached, Ms. Savage was interviewed by NBC New York, and during that interview, she said that the Neptune Township Police Department remained problematic. Her exact words were, “It has not changed, not for a minute. It’s not gonna’ change. It’s the good ol’ boy system. They don’t want women there.”

The police department subsequently filed a suit arguing that her comments to the news station had violated their non-disparagement agreement. Ms. Savage countered that assertion by pointing to New Jersey’s 2019 ban on the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases involving workplace harassment and retaliation.

In the original case, a trial court agreed with the police department that the statute does not extend to non-disparagement agreements, and ruled that Savage had violated the terms of their settlement agreement, but Ms. Savage appealed that decision. In 2022, the appellate court agreed that including a non-disparagement clause was valid, but also ruled that her interview had not violated the terms of the settlement agreement because her comments had referred to the present and future rather than the past behaviors specified within the contract’s language.

Both sides made arguments to the New Jersey Supreme Court in January, with the police department again arguing that the settlement’s terms were proper and that the 2019 law did not apply because it made no mention of non-disparagement agreements. The justices hearing the case appeared to question that theory, noting that the use of the phrase “non-disclosure provision” could be viewed as in keeping with the language of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination which encompassed “any provision within an employment contract or settlement agreement that had the purpose or effect of concealing details related to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.” Pointing out the inherent problem with leaving non-disparagement out of the law’s intention, Superior Court Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis asked, “How would a plaintiff discuss the details of their discrimination claim, which inherently involves accusing someone of discriminatory conduct, without disparaging them?”

The decision in favor of Ms. Savage would represent a significant clarification of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and could effectively limit the use of non-disparagement agreements in the future.

If you have been discriminated against or harassed in the workplace and you believe that your rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination have been violated, our attorneys are here to help. Contact us today to set up a time for us to discuss your situation.

The post New Jersey’s Supreme Court Considering Limits on Non-Disparagement Agreements appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

Mrs. Youngclaus was hired in May of 2016 by Residential Home Funding Corp., or RealFi, to be a marketing manager and director of marketing. In September 2021, she filed suit against the company, its president and owner, its CEO, and its vice president of branch development in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Morris County, accusing them of gender discrimination and sexual harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. She claimed that they had engaged in “severe and pervasive patterns of mentally and physically abusive conduct” from May 2016 through July 2020 and cited 21 instances of unprofessional, sexual, and inappropriate comments and discrimination made toward her by male staffers and executives.

The trial court granted RealFi’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim: the company had asserted that the allegations were time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations. In response, Mrs. Youngclaus filed a second lawsuit. It included all of the acts asserted in the first complaint in greater detail plus four more, and added a claim of discriminatory wrongful termination. She asserted that during the COVID pandemic and while she was on maternity leave, the company had relocated from Morris County, near her home, to White Plains, New York. She had asked to work remotely in the same way that similarly situated male employees had been allowed to do, but was told she would not be able to work from home and was “abruptly, wrongfully terminated.”

The lower court again granted RealFi’s motion to dismiss the case, agreeing that she had not put forward sufficient facts that occurred within the statute of limitations. The court noted that her failure to provide specific incidents was not sufficient to assess whether her termination had been part of the preceding acts, and therefore was not identifiable as a discriminatory act within the statutory period.

In reviewing the victim’s request to reconsider the lower court’s decisions, the appellate court agreed with Mrs. Youngclaus that the trial court had applied a higher standard than what was required by New Jersey’s rules surrounding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and that the case should not have been dismissed because the wrongful termination fell within the statute of limitations and was a continuation of the discriminatory behavior. Calling her firing “part of a pattern of discriminatory conduct,” the judges ruled that her ability to revive the time-barred acts included in her original claim was permitted under the continuing violation theory. The judges wrote in their decision that under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice … for an employer, because of the … sex …. of any individual … to discharge … from employment such individual.” The judges also reversed the trial court’s rulings that the acts that came before the wrongful termination, which included “demeaning, abusive, and coarse language and conduct; sexual advances and innuendo; gender stereotypes; retaliation; and unequal treatment based on plaintiff’s gender were discrete acts. They determined that the victim’s complaint represented a plausible basis for a continuing violation, and if proven would constitute “a pattern of sexual harassment and gender discrimination that was severe or pervasive, and created a hostile or abusive work environment.”

This decision is unpublished, which means that it does not constitute legal precedent, but the ruling can assist employers and employees in understanding their rights and responsibilities.

If you believe you have been the victim of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, or in some other way suffered because an employer violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the attorneys at Schorr Law can help. Contact us today to set up a time for us to discuss your situation.

The post New Jersey Appeals Court Reverses Dismissals in Sexual Discrimination and Wrongful Termination Claims appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

The original case filed by Mr. Hagel accused the Sea Girl police chief of having discriminated against him because of his military service, of refusing to promote him to the rank of sergeant, and of directing homophobic remarks at him. At the time of the trial, Hagel was 50 years old and had been a member of the U.S. Navy Reserves in Lakehurst for over 30 years. He participated in monthly training sessions held at various locations throughout the United States and was repeatedly deployed internationally. He claimed that Chief Kevin Davenport discriminated against him because of these responsibilities and that the chief had also believed that he was a homosexual and made sexually discriminating and harassing remarks based on that mistaken belief.

The claim indicated that the discrimination began in 2013 when Davenport was promoted from acting chief to police chief and took over scheduling. Both Mr. Hagel and another witness testified about both acts and statements of discrimination by Chief Davenport against Mr. Hagel, including placing a mock license plate with the words “I’m Gay” over the rear license plate of Hagel’s car; saying that all Navy guys are gay and using vulgar language about military personnel in general and Hagel in particular in front of junior officers; unlawfully accessing national law enforcement databases to conduct illegal searches on Hagel; and telling Hagel that Sea Girt would never hire or promote another military person. Davenport’s actions went so far as to assign another police officer to confirm that Hagel was truly attending military drills, having him followed by private investigators, and cutting out photos of Hagel’s face, defacing them with vulgar drawings of a sexual act, then placing them in locations around the Sea Girt police department headquarters.

Hagel’s suit claimed that he was wrongfully denied a promotion to sergeant twice because of anti-military discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination and that Davenport’s behaviors and actions had caused fellow officers to wrongly believe that he was gay. The jury found Davenport engaged in anti-military and false sexual orientation discrimination and awarded Hagel $262,800 in compensatory damages for lost salary and benefits, $500,000 in emotional distress damages, and $1 million in punitive damages. Those punitive damages were later cut to $750,000, but the court later added $600,000 in attorney fees.

The Borough of Sea Court argued that a new trial was in order because the instructions that had been given to jurors were confusing and mixed two different theories of liability under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. They asserted that Hagel’s promotion had been denied based on the lateness of his application, but the Appellate Court denied their request, noting that both theories that were presented to the jury were applicable and that the instructions to the jury had been clear. They also pointed out that some of Davenport’s statements were direct evidence of his hostility toward a protected class and demonstrated a direct causal connection between his hostility and the department’s refusal to accept the late application. They also pointed to the drawings and altered photos as proof of Davenport’s “discriminatory animus” against Hagel.

In their decision, the appellate judges wrote, “The numerous and unmistakably hostile expressions of animus that Davenport admitted to making or which the jury reasonably attributed to him were not ‘stray remarks,”‘ because he was part of the decision-making process for the promotion. This, we conclude, amply justified the trial court’s implicit application of the Myers and Smith perspective, particularly in light of the Law Against Discrimination remedial purposes.”

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination explicitly forbids employers from discriminating against employees or potential employees based on their membership in a long list of protected categories. Both the jury and the appellate court agreed that the police officer’s egregious demonstrations of hostility and the Sea Girt police department’s denial of the officer’s promotion met the criteria for violations of the law. If you have been similarly discriminated against or harassed based on your membership in a protected class, we can help. Contact us to schedule an appointment so we can discuss your situation and review your options.

The post $1.5 Million Bias Verdict Called Correct by Appellate Court appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

Speaking on his own behalf and on behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association New Jersey, Mr. Schorr pointed to the improvements that had been made a few years earlier when the threshold for the Family Leave Act’s job protection was lowered to businesses with 30 employees, and urged the assembly to take further action for even greater impact. Citing child development experts’ near-universal position on the importance of parent/child bonding during the first twelve weeks of an infant’s life, he noted that newborns’ needs do not diminish based on the number of employees their parents’ employers have working for them.

Proactively addressing cost objections from small business owners, Mr. Schorr noted that as a small business owner himself, accommodating Family Leave has always been a challenge but has always been well worth it: he noted the gratitude of his employees and the wellbeing of their children. He also asserted that when small businesses offer the same benefits that larger employees do, they elevate their ability to compete for better job candidates and that offering Family Leave protections will boost their desirability.

In his closing remarks to the assembly, Mr. Schorr noted that though all of the reasons posited by experts were valid, the most important reason for lowering the threshold number of employees for business offering Family Leave protection was that it was simply the right thing to do. The full legislature will consider the bill soon.

The post Alan Schorr Testimony Integral to Passage of NJ Family Leave Bill appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

The case being appealed was originally filed by a commissioned saleswoman, Rosalyn Musker, against her employer, Suuchi, Inc. Ms. Musker had been a software salesperson, compensated through a combination of a base salary and a tiered commission structure. During the global pandemic, the company began selling Personal Protection Equipment and Ms. Musker sold $34,448,900 worth of products in March 2020 alone.

Based on the compensation structure in place at the time, Ms. Musker was due to receive $1,315,957.93 in commissions, but her company retroactively changed the commission structure, shorting her more than $1 million in compensation. She filed suit based on the protections offered by New Jersey’s Wage Protection Laws, but her case was dismissed based on previous courts’ having interpreted that law as excluding tiered or sliding scale commissions.

It is the position of the National Employment Lawyers’ Association of New Jersey that New Jersey Federal courts, State trial courts, and arbitrators have been misinterpreting the statute and denying NJWPL protection to commissioned salespeople, and that confusion will continue in the absence of any published New Jersey Appellate decision that clarifies the issue. The amicus brief was filed to assist the Appellate Court in understanding how wages are defined under other New Jersey statutes, the difference between incentives and tiered or sliding scale commissions, and the reason that it is
both illogical and against state policy to exclude commissioned salespeople from the protection of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

We eagerly await the Court’s decision.

The post Alan Schorr Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Workers Paid on Tiered Commission appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

Senate Bill S-1602 is sponsored by Senator Andrew Zwicker (D),  representing Middlesex County. In advancing the bill, Senator Zwicker said, “It should be unlawful for an employer to impose minimum height requirements to avoid hiring women, and it should be unlawful for an employer to impose weight limits to avoid hiring men and women who do not fit an employer’s subjective vision of what is attractive.”  In support of the bill’s passage, Alan Schorr  spoke on behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association – New Jersey.

Mr. Schorr spoke frankly, explaining that many employers look for loopholes in the state’s anti-discrimination laws that they can use to discriminate against employees based on their looks or gender. He said that adding height and weight to the state law’s protections is “long overdue.”

Mr. Schorr pointed to historical anecdotes of airlines requiring flight attendants to be young, female, and unmarried, and of restaurants and bars requiring cocktail servers to maintain a certain weight. He called those requirements illegitimate and discriminatory because they had nothing to do with an individual’s ability to perform a job’s responsibilities. He added that the same is true of employers who refuse to hire an individual due to dwarfism or morbid obesity.

If the New Jersey legislature passes the law, it will join New York City and the State of Michigan in prohibiting height and weight discrimination. Addressing concerns that Bill was spawn a flood of litigation,  Mr. Schorr pointed out that there have been fewer than one hundred such cases filed in the state of Michigan in the decade since they passed their height and weight law, and that the language of the bill specifies that in situations where those characteristics are bona fide occupational qualifications, employers will be exempt.

Following Mr. Schorr’s presentation, the measure was unanimously passed by the committee. A similar bill has been introduced in the State Assembly.

The post Alan Schorr Testifies before the State Senate Labor Committee Regarding Height and Weight Discrimination appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.