You can anticipate that any employment agreement you’re asked to sign will contain details about the job itself, your title, your exempt or non-exempt status as an employee, and whether you’re being hired for a finite or indefinite period. It should also spell out what your responsibilities will be. The agreement will also indicate your new employer’s responsibilities to you in terms of compensation,  including pay and benefits, and whether and under what circumstances you can be terminated.

But in addition to those terms, there may also be covenants and clauses that directly impact your future ability to work. Non-solicitation clauses, noncompete agreements, and nondisclosure agreements are frequently included in employment contracts, but their restrictions can vary, and are not always reasonable. Some employers ask you to sign you’re your right to sue and agree to arbitrate claims, which greatly benefits the employer. Signing an employment contract without having it reviewed by an attorney puts you at risk for being unable to work in the same industry or geographical region for a period of time that would jeopardize your ability to earn a living, and limit your rights upon termination of your employment.

Unfortunately, many employees make the mistake of assuming that an employment contract is just a formality, and many people believe that they are unenforceable. Also, many employees incorrectly believe that the terms of an employment cannot be negotiated for fear of having the offer withdrawn. Employment attorneys know when and how to negotiate for an agreement that is more fair. While it is true that having an employment contract in place can provide clarity for both employer and employee, and protection in case an employer breaches any of its terms, the restrictions on employee freedoms or ownership of work product that it puts in place can be unreasonable.

To protect yourself, it is a good idea to have an attorney review your employment contract before signing it, especially if you are in a high-level position. Though it may feel uncomfortable to ask for time before signing, employers are becoming increasingly aware that noncompete agreements, arbitration clauses, and similar clauses are controversial, and should have updated any unreasonable terms in order to make the agreements enforceable.  It is in your best interest to understand exactly what you’re signing, and an employment attorney can help make that happen.

The post What Should You Do When Asked to Sign an Employment Agreement? appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

1. Violation of an Employment Contract – Employment contracts are generally executed when an employee is first hired. They outline how much the employer will pay the employee, the benefits they will be provided, what the employee’s duties and obligations are to the employer and what the employer’s duties are to the employee. Though employment contracts often identify an employee as being “at will”, if the contract limits the circumstances under which employment can be terminated and you are fired in violation of those terms, you may be able to file a lawsuit against them for breach of contract and wrongful termination.
2. Violation of the State’s Discrimination Laws – The state of New Jersey has a robust anti-discrimination law called the NJLAD – New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. It specifically prohibits firing an employee because of their race, gender, national origin, religion, or membership in one of several other discriminated classes defined under the law. Wrongful termination under the NJLAD does not require that you actually be terminated. If your workplace has become so toxic as a result of harassment or hostility that it becomes impossible for you to continue working, you may be eligible to file a wrongful termination lawsuit.
3. Violation of Public Policy Laws – In the state of New Jersey and under federal law there are certain activities that are protected against retaliation. These include coming forward as a whistleblower to report illegal activity on the part of your employer, filing for workers compensation, taking advantage of mandated benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and reporting wage and hour violations. If you are terminated or retaliated against for participating in any of these legally protected activities, you may be eligible to file a wrongful termination lawsuit.

The law recognizes the imbalance of power between an employer and its employees, and offers legal and financial remedies in response to wrongful termination. An employee who is able to prove that they have been the victim of unfair employment practices is able to recover damages in the form of compensation for lost wages as well as punitive damages meant to punish the employer for their illegal actions. You may also be awarded compensation for emotional stress that you have suffered, reinstatement of benefits and position if you wish to return to your former position, and reimbursement for any attorney’s fees and court costs that you have incurred. Though it is impossible to predict exactly what damages you can expect from your particular situation, previous wrongful termination lawsuits have resulted in significant verdicts for wronged employees, with judgments ranging from $50,000 in damages to over $10 million for employees who were bypassed for promotions, subjected to sexual discrimination or harassment, and fired in retaliation for whistleblowing activities.

Though it is easy to feel intimidated by a former employer, with an experienced and knowledgeable employment attorney by your side you can feel confident in your rights. For information about whether you are eligible to file a wrongful termination lawsuit against your former workplace, contact the experienced attorneys at Schorr Law today.

The post Wrongful Termination in the State of New Jersey: Know Your Rights appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

There are significant differences between an employer’s right to control social media use when employees are speaking as a representative of their organization versus when they are posting from their personal devices without identifying themselves as an employee. It is important to understand what those differences are, and what rights employers have when it comes to personal social media accounts.

Employers are well within their rights to impose rules or create controls or monitors to limit the amount of time that employees access the internet or social media while at work or using company equipment. Steps that are intended to optimize productivity, protect proprietary information or guard against data breaches or other improper activities are straightforward and permissible. Likewise, employers are within their rights to access employee information and potential employee information that is in the public domain, and even to act upon it. However, the state of New Jersey and several other states have recognized that many employers were imposing undue pressure on employees, or violating their privacy rights, with reference to their social media accounts. In 2013 the New Jersey state legislature passed a law to protect against this type of activity.

New Jersey Statute N.J.S.A. 34:6B-5, et seq.,specifically prohibits employers from requiring either current employees or prospective employees to provide the user-names or passwords to their personal social media accounts, or to in any other way force them to provide access to those accounts. Employers who violate this law will be subject to liability and fines if they either fire an existing employee or refuse to hire a prospective employee because they refused to provide this information or access. The law also specifically prohibits employers from requiring employees or prospective employees to waive these protections, and makes any such waiver unenforceable.

Though these laws create significant protections for employees, they still allow the employer control over employees’ use of social media in certain circumstances. For example, if the employer provides the employee with a social media account specifically for business purposes, the prohibition against asking for a password or access does not apply. Similarly, if an employer learns that an employee is engaging in some kind of misconduct online (such as revealing proprietary or confidential information about the company,) employers are permitted to conduct an investigation and act upon what they find.

Employees or potential employees who believe that their rights under this law have been violated are not permitted to file a personal injury lawsuit against their employer: Rather they are to file a claim with the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development seeking enforcement of the law. Doing so will spur an investigation that can lead to the imposition of a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for a first offense and $2,500 for each subsequent offense.

Beyond these protections, employees are vulnerable to employers taking action against them over social media activity that is in the public domain. The one major exception to this rule is where the postings are seen as being protected by the employee’s right to unionize or take action against unfair labor practices. Beyond that exception, because most employees are considered “at will,” employers are generally permitted to terminate or suspend employment, or to choose not to hire a prospective employee, for any reason as long as it is not discriminatory. This means that if you have posted a comment that your employer believes is inappropriate or that reflects badly on them or their organization, they have the right to take action against you.

It is important to note that if an employer has a social media policy in place that they enforce unevenly, and you suspect that the enforcement is a reflection of a discriminatory practice, then that may be illegal under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Social media has extended our ability to connect with one another, but at the same time it provides employers with a window into our private thoughts and expressions. Though employers are not permitted to force employees to provide them with access to their private accounts, there is no prohibition from them accessing information that is in the public domain and acting upon it. Be smart in your social media use, and if you believe that your rights have been violated contact the NJ employment attorneys at Schorr and Associates today.

The post What Employees Need to Know About New Jersey’s Social Media Privacy Laws appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.

This powerful evidence can shift the momentum of a plaintiff’s case, increase pressure on defendants, and ultimately may convince a jury that a defendant harbors a discriminatory motive, not only against the plaintiff, but also against similarly situated employees. These cases have ruled that evidence of other discrimination in the workplace, as well as employers’ internal investigations of complaints of discrimination are discoverable because they are necessary to determine whether or not the employer’s practice and policies provide effective remedial measures to prevent future discrimination and to protect employees from further discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

New Jersey permits the discovery of investigations of not just the harasser’s claims, but of other employees’ claims of harassment. The efficacy of an employer’s harassment prevention and response (“remedial”) measures is highly relevant to both the employee’s claim against the employer and against the employer’s defense to liability. Effective remedial measures include the process by which the employer arrives at the sanctions that it imposes on alleged harassers. In Payton, the Supreme Court stated:

In short, a remedial scheme that reaches the correct result through a process that is unduly prolonged or that unnecessarily and unreasonably leaves the employee exposed to continued hostility in the workplace is an ineffective remedial scheme. Such a process, in reality, indirectly punishes employees with the temerity to complain about sexual harassment and cannot constitute “effective” remediation. Indeed, such a scheme can be viewed only as an attempt by the employer to discourage employees from coming forward and utilizing the employer’s remedial process in the first place. Payton v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority at 538-39.

The Appellate Division, in Connolly, clarified the scope of discovery permitted under Payton, reasoning that:

Moreover, the absence of effective responses to sexual harassment claims in general may foster an atmosphere of tolerance thereby contributing to a sexually hostile atmosphere and may constitute the willful indifference which is a predicate for the award of punitive damages. . . Finally, we note that the discovery may provide evidence that the employment of other complainants had been terminated, which may lead to probative evidence regarding plaintiff s contention that she was the victim of retaliatory discharge. Connolly v. Burger King at 349.

Any remedial measure that leaves the complainant worse off is ineffective per se. See Guess v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 913 F. 2d 463, 465 (7th Cir. 1990). In Guess, the Circuit Court addressed a claim where the Plaintiff claimed that she was transferred because she complained of sexual harassment. The Court stated:

Guess argues that one of the corrective steps that Bethlehem took, even if effective, was improper: to transfer her rather than the foreman out of the department in which the incident occurred, in order to reduce the chances of a recurrence. She relies on a simple syllogism, which while we cannot find it in any previous case seems to state the law correctly: A remedial measure that makes the victim of sexual harassment worse off is ineffective per se. A transfer that reduces the victim’s wage or other remuneration, increases the disamenities of work, or impairs her prospects for promotion makes the victim worse off. Therefore such a transfer is an inadequate discharge of the employer’s duty of correction. Guess v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. at 465.

Discovery of the treatment of others that have complained may be extremely relevant and useful in determining whether the employer takes steps to prevent further discrimination without retaliating against the complainant or placing the complainant in a worse condition than he or she was prior to the complaint.

Schorr Law is very familiar with the laws regarding discovery in discrimination, harassment, and retaliation matters. Alan H. Schorr, Esquire was the attorney in Connolly v. Burger King and has been successful in expanding the scope of discovery for plaintiffs. If you believe you may be the victim of discrimination, harassment, ore retaliation in the workplace, call Schorr Law to see if we can assist you in resolving your matter.

The post The Law Pertaining to the Discovery in Sexual Harassment and Other Discrimination Cases appeared first on Schorr Law | The Employment Lawyers | South Jersey Employment Attorneys.