Last May, in the case of Savage v. Township of Neptune, the New Jersey Appellate Division determined that a 2019 amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), prohibiting non-disclosure or confidentiality provisions in employment contracts and settlement agreements, did not extend to the inclusion of non-disparagement clauses.

Four months later, Assembly Bill No. 4521 (A4521) was introduced to close the loophole exposed by the Savage decision.  Even though non-disparagement clauses are commonly recognized by employers as an instrument to protect the value of a business’ reputation and goodwill, A4521 reinforces the intent of the existing law to prevent the inclusion of provisions in employment agreements that would have a chilling effect on pursuing claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.

Specifically, the proposed legislation will clarify that:

A provision in any employment contract that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment, including, but not limited to, a non-disclosure or non-disparagement provision, or other similar agreement, shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable.

If enacted, the bill will take effect immediately, and apply to all agreements drafted, renewed, modified, or amended after the effective date.

Campanella Law Office will be carefully monitoring A4521 as it progresses through the New Jersey Legislative process.  However, in anticipation of its enactment, if your business has any questions or concerns about existing employment agreements and how they might be affected, Contact Us.

The post Assembly Bill No. 4521: Savage decision regarding Non-Disparagement Clauses Prompts New Legislation appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

On March 9, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court had its first opportunity to consider a pregnancy discrimination matter that was based on the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (the “Act”).  The Court was asked to consider whether the Act had been violated as a matter of law.  After careful analysis and with due consideration to the background and import of the relatively new piece of legislation, the Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Division’s ruling that the plaintiff raised a valid claim and that the case should proceed.

In Delanoy v. Township of Ocean, the plaintiff, a pregnant police officer, alleged that the differences between the defendant Township’s standard operating procedures for light duty work as they applied to pregnant and non-pregnant injured officers were discriminatory.  She also alleged that the defendant failed to accommodate her pregnancy.  The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that no violation had occurred.  However, the Appellate Division disagreed.  The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court wherein the Appellate Division’s ruling was affirmed.

In 2014, the Act, amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) to include “pregnancy and breastfeeding” as a protected classification and add specific protections in the workplace for pregnant and breastfeeding women.  The amended legislation not only outlines an employer’s obligation to a pregnant or breastfeeding employee but also includes a list of possible accommodations.  Therefore, despite the finding that the plaintiff in Delanoy did not identify a specific cause of action under the Act, the Court recognized that three statutory causes of action do exist: (1) unequal or unfavorable treatment of a pregnant or breastfeeding employee; (2) the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation to a pregnant or breastfeeding employee; and (3) the illegal penalization of a pregnant or breastfeeding employee who has requested an accommodation.

Including New Jersey, 27 states currently have laws in place that require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees.  Moreover, H.R. 1065 was recently passed by the United States House of Representatives on May 14, 2021, and is currently  being reviewed by the Senate.  If passed the bill will create a national prohibition on employment practices that discriminate against making reasonable accommodations for qualified employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. It will also set forth enforcement procedures and remedies for related unlawful employment practices.

In light of this ruling, if you would like assistance reviewing your standard operating procedures as they relate to the treatment and accommodation of pregnant and breastfeeding employees, Contact Us.

The post Courtroom Cue: New Jersey Supreme Court Addresses Pregnant Workers Fairness Act appeared first on Campanella Law Office.

Last July, the New Jersey Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act (the Act) effectively expanded protections against pay discrimination and retaliation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). Almost a year later, the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (DCR) has published guidance intended to offer clarification and assistance with compliance and implementation.

Generally speaking, the guidance provides an overview of the Act and includes a “Q&A” section providing insight into the Act’s interpretation, thus far.  In doing so it clarifies how the Act affected the existing LAD and provides valuable information regarding the obligations and rights of employers and employees, alike.

According to the guidance, the Equal Pay Act is distinguished from the NJLAD in several important ways.

• Where the NJLAD required equal pay for equal work, the Act “prohibits an employer from paying an employee who is a member of an LAD-protected class less than what it pays an employee who is not a member of that LAD-protected class for substantially similar work.”
• The Act expands activities that are protected from employer retaliation to a broader range of conduct. For example, speaking to an attorney about one’s rights related to a possible claim under the NJLAD is now a protected act.
• The Act expands the remedies for pay discrimination. Among the expanded remedies is a provision for a six-year “look-back period,” for the recovery of back pay, the codification of the common law holding that a violation occurs each time an individual is affected by a discriminatory decision or practice, and an allowance for treble damages.

Whether you believe you have been the subject of discrimination or harassment on the job, or if you would like assistance with reporting requirements or evaluating your business’ records to prevent possible pay disparity claims, we are able to help.   Do not hesitate to Contact Us.

The post The Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act Explained: March 2020 Guidelines Provide Explanation of Purpose and Application appeared first on Campanella Law Office.