Morgan v. Raymours Furniture, Inc., 443 N.J. Super. 338, certif. denied, 225 N.J. 220, Cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 204 (Arbitration cannot be enforced where employer disclaims the existence of a contract in its policy)(January 7, 2016)

Robertson v. State Dep’t. of Law & Public Safety, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1541 (EEO files of other similarly situated employees are discoverable)(June 27, 2018)

Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc. (published, no West number yet), 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 7 (Arbitration cannot be enforced where employer merely asked employee to “acknowledge” receipt of arbitration policy)(January 16, 2019)

Connolly v. Burger King Corp., 306 N.J. Super. 344 (App. Div. 1997) (Discovery of other claims of discrimination against employer is permissible and admissible).

Greenberg v. Camden County Vocational & Technical Sch., 310 N.J. Super 189 (App. Div. 1998) (The qualifications prong of the prima facie analysis must be determined objectively. No requirement that performance was meeting expectations).

Quigley v. KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, 330 N.J. Super. 252 (App. Div. 2000) (Arbitration cannot be forced upon employee unless voluntary and knowing).

Leshner v. McCollister's Transportation Systems, 113 F. Supp. 2d 689 (D.N.J. 2000) (It is a Law Against Discrimination violation when an employer deliberately overworks an employee despite knowledge of health problems).

Gerard v. Camden County Health Services Center, 348 N.J.Super. 516 (App. Div. 2002) (For purposes of CEPA a cause of action is stated if an employee complains because she has a reasonable belief that unlawful actions were taken against a co-worker).

Stomel v. City of Camden, et al, 383 N.J. Super. 615 (App. Div. 2006) (Public defenders are considered employees for purposes of CEPA).

Stomel v. City of Camden, 192 N.J. 137 (NJ Supreme Court 2007) (City of Camden held liable for Mayor's retaliatory termination of public defender. Public Defender is considered an employee for purposes of CEPA.)

Cutler v. Dorn, 196 N.J. 419 (2008) (Harassment based on religion and ethnicity entitled to same protection as sexual and racial harassment) (amicus brief).

Rivera v. City of Camden Board of Education, 34 F.Supp.2d 486 (D.N.J. 2009) (employee is protected by CEPA even if someone else blows the whistle for him).

Savoie v. The Lawrenceville School (App. Div. 2013) (unpublished) (reversing summary judgment in sexual orientation discrimination case and holding that public policy is implicated where an employee is terminated because of sexual practices).

Regis v. Int'l Paper Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138270 (D.N.J. 2013) (no fraudulent joinder where the joined supervisor potentially aided and abetted his own conduct, creating liability for his actions)

Raymours Furniture Co. v. Rossi, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1006 (D.N.J. 2014) (Arbitration Agreement in Employee Handbook unenforceable where the Handbook includes a disclaimer that nothing within the Handbook creates a contract)

Apatoff v. Munich Re Am. Servs., 2014 US Dist. LEXIS 106665 (D.N.J., August 1, 2014) (Asthma is a disability under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination)

Unemployment Decisions:

Leblanc v. Board of Review, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 546 (Claimant must be provided an opportunity to make a written argument to the Board of Review)(March 11, 2013)

Koch v. Board of Review, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1005 (No refund of benefits because the employer did not make a timely appeal)(April 25, 2017)

In re N.J.A.C. 12:17-2.1, 450 N.J. Super. 152 (Invalidated unemployment regulations that added negligence as a basis for misconduct disqualification)(May 1, 2017)

Chando v. Board of Review, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 80 (Reversed unemployment disqualification where employee had quit and accepted a job that ended after one day)(January 12, 2018)

Regis v. Board of Review (App. Div. 2012) (unpublished) (remanding for a new unemployment hearing where Appeal Tribunal did not conduct a full and proper hearing).

Silver v. Board of Review, 430 N.J. Super. 44 (App. Div. 2013) (Negligence cannot constitute misconduct, and severe misconduct must be require more severe behavior than simple misconduct).

Alicea v. Board of Review, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2013) (Due process requires proper language translation in notices).

Radich v. Board of Review (App. Div. 2014) (unpublished) (Due process was violated when the plaintiff was not sent notice of an appeal and the notice failed to specify that she had the right to respond or a date by which she needed to respond)

Lin v. Board of Review (App. Div. 2014) (unpublished) (Arguing with a co-worker does not constitute misconduct; concurrence further states that Board of Review erred in failing to inform the plaintiff of the potential consequences for appealing)

Dye v. Board of Review, (App. Div. 2014) (unpublished) (There cannot be misconduct where the alleged actions were not intentional and malicious).

   Schorr & Associates, P.C.    
     5 Split Rock Drive      Cherry Hill,      NJ      08003    
   Phone: 856-874-9090    URL of Map