A New Jersey Appellate Division has denied an appeal of a whistleblower verdict in favor of a state employee against her former employer the State Department of Corrections.  The plaintiff, Meg Yatauro, brought her claim under the New Jersey whistleblower law known as the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, alleging that she suffered adverse employment action as a result of objecting to several improprieties over the period of years concerning the misuse of public funds.  After a lengthy trial, the jury agreed that Ms. Yatauro was retaliated for her whistleblowing activities and awarded her $1,000,000 in damages for emotional distress and economic losses.

IMG_0501-300x169
In this case entitled Meg Yatauro v. State of New Jersey, Gary M. Lanigan, Judy Lang, Mark Farsi, the plaintiff, Ms. Yatauro, began working for the Department of Corrections in civil service positions in 1984.  After nineteen years, Ms. Yatauro was promoted to the assistant superintendent position at Northern State Prison.  She was later transferred to Mid-State Correctional Facility, which she remained for two years, before being transferred to Central Reception and Assignment Facility, where she was promoted to associate administrator.  In 2012, Ms. Yatauro was transferred to the Albert C. Wagner Youth Correction Facility in an administrator position, where she alleged the whistleblowing and resulting retaliation took place.

The judge permitted Ms. Yatauro to present evidence of several whistleblowing events to the jury during the trial.  First, Plaintiff complained to her supervisor concerning the Chief of the Special Investigations Division having his Trenton office painted using funds out of the correction facilities budget at a time it had its own urgent need for repairs.  Another complaint was aslo related to an issue of misuse of funds involving another supervisor made unauthorized credit card purchases and permitted maintenance staff to work overtime without Ms. Yatauro’s approval.

Whether a worker is afforded protection under federal and New Jersey employment laws is often determined whether they are an employee or an independent contractor. Many employment laws provide protection only to employees, with little to no protection for independent contractors. For example, employees have access to wage theft protection, overtime pay, workers’ compensation, unemployment benefits, family leave laws, health and safety, and anti-discrimination protections, whereas independent contractors may not. In situations where a worker is misclassified as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, that worker can be deprived of the protections that they are entitled to under the law.

IMG_0999-300x169

Classification of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor has become more and more important in our going growing technological economy. The growing accessibility of technology provides a vast digital marketplace that is now at the fingertips of millions of consumers. App-based companies, such as Uber, Lyft, and Postmates have taken advantage of this accessibility and services quickly and conveniently. To accomplish this goal, these companies typically elicit services from workers on a job-by-job basis, commonly referred to as “gigs”. As this “gig” economy expands and becomes a more viable source of income for many workers, it brings to the surface questions with respect to the classification of the workers engaging in it.

As a result of the increasing frequency of worker misclassification, New Jersey organized the Task Force on Employee Misclassification to investigate and address the issue.  In its July 2019 report, the Task Force found that while prominent within the “gig” economy, this misclassification extends to workers many sectors, especially those in labor-intensive and low-wage positions. In fact, Federal studies and state-level agency audits suggest that between 10 and 30 percent of employers have misclassified employees as independent contractors, a number that has grown by upwards of 40% in recent years. In addition to depriving employees of protections under the law, these employers have avoided payment of income taxes as well as contributions to social programs, such as Social Security, on the misclassified employees.

The New Jersey Transgender Equality Task Force issued its report and recommendations on November 20, 2019 to address discrimination against transgender individuals of New Jersey.  The New Jersey Transgender Equality Task Force, was established by Governor Murphy and its Senate and Assembly sponsors in July, 2018, convened in March, 2019 and has worked for the past six month studying a wide ranging issues of discrimination facing transgender persons, including health care, long term care, education, higher education, housing, employment and criminal justice.  New Jersey’s creation of the Transgender Equality Task Force is the first in the nation.

IMG_92AFD566C527-1-300x166The task force was chaired by Aaron Potenza who is the Policy and Program Manager for the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Mr. Potenza was joined by representatives from nine state agencies along with other experts, lawyers and health care professionals.   The task force’s directive was to assess the legal and societal barriers to equality for transgender individuals in the State and to make recommendations to ensure equality and improve the lives of transgender individuals.  The task force’s report, entitled “Addressing Discrimination Against Transgender New Jerseyans”, includes various recommendations to address LGBTQ discrimination, which include the following:

  • the Governor’s Office announcing a campaign to increase sexual orientation and gender identity data collection throughout New Jersey state agencies;

Another state has enacted a law to accommodate breastfeeding mothers called to jury duty. Last month, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed new legislation providing jury duty exemptions for breastfeeding mothers into New York law.  New York joins seventeen other states and Puerto Rico who have enacted similar legislation to provide breastfeeding mothers necessary accommodations if called to jury duty. While New Jersey has amended the state’s anti-discrimination law in recent years to include pregnancy as a protected class and to require employers to provide breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace, there is currently is no specific law in place that exempts breastfeeding mother from jury duty.  Whether New Jersey will soon follow New York’s lead remains to be seen.

Employment Lawyers
Under the recent New York law, breastfeeding mothers may file an exemption from serving jury duty for two years, requiring only a doctor’s note affirming that they are currently breastfeeding at the time the exemption is filed.  During the signing, Governor Cuomo noted, “While jury service is a critically important civic duty, we also know new moms oftentimes juggle countless responsibilities and navigate enormous adjustments in the early stages of their child’s life,” and that “This commonsense measure takes that reality into account by providing new moms the flexibility and option to postpone jury service while they care for a newborn.”

New York has followed the national trend in enacting similar laws to deal with the issue facing many new mothers in attempting to fulfill their civic duty while also needing to care for their newborn.  In March 2017, a breastfeeding woman in Minnesota took to Facebook  to share her horrific experience when having to serve on a jury while breastfeeding.  As she stated in her Facebook post, Amanda Chandler was granted only two breaks to breastfeed by the clerk and judge and needed to do so in a bathroom.  Ms. Chandler stated, “[s]eems pretty ironic that the very place which is supposed to uphold and enforce the laws would not follow or adhere to them.”

A newly released study by the Association of American Universities (AAU) has shown an increase in incidents of sexual assault and misconduct on college campuses in the United States since they last published a similar report in 2015. Using data gathered for the current study came from twenty-seven universities during the 2018 school year and 2019 spring semester; comprised of over 180,000 respondents from both public and private institutions, in both undergraduate and graduate programs. The study is yet another indicator that despite the increased public attention of the #MeToo movement, women continue to be confronted with issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault at an alarming rate.

IMG_6669-300x169The findings of the report categorize the respondents as male, female, transgendered, or non-identified gendered, as well as whether they were graduate or undergraduate students at the time. The findings of the report show that compared to the original 2015 report there is an increased awareness across the board on what is considered to be sexual assault and misconduct amongst all students. While this is encouraging, this finding coincides with a notable increase in sexual misconduct experienced by students even as campuses nationwide have implemented more comprehensive plans to address the problem.

According to the study undergraduate women are almost three times more likely than graduate women to encountered nonconsensual sexual contact (25.9% to 9.7%). The same holds true for undergraduate men (6.8%) when compared to graduate men (2.5%). While transgendered or non-identified gendered students also found that undergraduate students (22.8%) were subjected to more nonconsensual sexual contact than graduate students (14.5%). The study has shown that older students were less likely to experience nonconsensual sexual misconduct than their younger colleagues. This is true in the comparison of undergraduate and graduate students, but also when comparing younger undergraduates to their older counterparts. First year undergraduates were found more likely to report nonconsensual sexual contact than any other year as an undergraduate, with the rate decreasing steadily with each additional year of undergraduate study.

In the midst of increased public scrutiny concerning allegations of a toxic work environment, NBC has announced that it will not seek to enforce any non-disclosure agreements (“NDA”) against any former or current NBC employee who wishes to speak openly about incidents of sexual harassment.  The announcement comes in response to recent reports that several former NBC employees are unwilling to speak publicly about their experiences of sexual harassment at NBC in fear that they would be breaching the NDA’s if they did so. While NBC maintains that the NDA agreements never prohibited employees from speaking out against sexual harassment, at least a few employees have been reported to believe differently.  The announcement should resolve any confusion of whether former or current NBC employees’ can speak freely about the NBC work environment. It also serves as a reminder to all employers of the significant legal risks associated with attempting to use NDA’s to keep employees silent about issues of workplace discrimination  


fullsizeoutput_44-300x169
The #Metoo movement has encouraged many victims of sexual harassment to openly and publicly discuss their experiences in working in a hostile work environment.  For far too long, victims of sexual harassment have remained silent and not hold the perpetrators responsible for the grave harms caused by their actions.  Many times, the decision to stay silent is voluntary. Victims would rather try to ignore what happened for fear that they will not be believed, their employer will not take any action, or even worse, suffer retaliation.  In fact, according to the report of the 2016 Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, the least common response of a victim of harassment is to take some form of formal action, whether it be report the harassment internally or file a formal legal lawsuit.  In fact, approximately 75% of victims of sexual harassment will never talk to management, HR or a union representative about an incident of workplace sexual harassment.

Other victims of sexual harassment cannot speak freely about their experiences because they signed a written NDA contract with their former or current employer.  An NDA prohibiting an employee from discussing workplace sexual harassment is typically executed either when an employee starts his or her employment, or when the employment is separated.  When starting employment, many employers require the employee to sign employment agreements that include confidentiality of company trade secrets, proprietary information and other aspects of the employment that require confidentiality.  Some employers attempt to use these provisions to restrain current or former employees from disclosing incidents of workplace sexual harassment and deem them “confidential” under the NDA provision. While these confidentiality provisions in employment agreements are in most situations unenforceable as against public policy, many employees feel restrained by the provision and remain afraid to breach it.  Some employees are even afraid to speak to an employment attorney for advice and counsel concerning their rights under anti-discrimination laws. 

fullsizeoutput_42-300x169
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a public employee who alleges she was terminated by her public employer for inquiring into a complaint that she had been illegally recorded during a conversation with a union leader.  In reversing the district court’s decision, the court reinforced the separation of a public employee’s speech in their capacity as a private citizen in comparison to what they say in their capacity as a public employee.  This case is a reminder that public employees do not waive their First Amendment rights by accepting public employment and have job protections when they engage in protected activity under the United States Constitution.  

In this case entitled Javitz v. County of Lucerne, the plaintiff, Donna Javitz’s was employed as the director of human resources for Lucerne County.  During her employment, Ms. Javitz’s alleges that she made a report to the district attorney that she had allegedly been illegally recorded when she met a union leader in her official capacity. The county manager told Javitz and the district attorney to drop the matter, but Javitz followed up with questions on the status of the investigation regarding the recording. Suddenly, her relationship with her employer became rocky and Javitz was abruptly terminated. Javitz claimed that her termination was in retaliation for reporting the alleged illegal recording to the district attorney. 

The county employer alleged that Javitz had been working within her capacity as a public employee when she was inquiring about the status of the investigation and therefore no First Amendment violation existed. The district court agreed and cited to the Lucerne County Code of Ethics as the source by which it found her conduct in reporting the illegal activity to be within her official capacity as a county employee. Because the action was within her duties as an employee, the District Court concluded that the report did not qualify as speech protected by the First Amendment. 

An Essex County New Jersey Superior Court judge has issued an opinion that held that a Professional Employer Organization (also known as PEO) can be considered a co-employer for the purposes of the state’s Law Against Discrimination.  In the case, Stephanie Perez sued not only her W-2 employer, the Dermatology Group, P.C., but also their designated PEOs, ADP TotalSource II, Inc. and ADP, LLC t/a ADP Major, for claims of pregnancy discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate and unlawful retaliation. This is an important development in how New Jersey courts are treating the relationship between employees, their primary employers, and PEOs.

IMG_0544-300x169
PEOs are organizations that provide support services, including human resources services, to companies. Typically, PEOs provide such services to small and medium sized companies that do not have internal staff committed to providing such services. Over the past 40 years, PEOs have become a substantial segment of the national employment landscape. According to statistics reported by the National Association of Professional Employer Organizations (“NAPEO”), there are now over 907 PEOs operating in the United States providing services to 175,000 small and medium-sized businesses, which in turn employ approximately 3,700,000 employees nationwide.

Often, PEOs are designated as the W-2 employer or act in a capacity of being a co-employer with an employee’s primary employer. As NAPEO acknowledges, PEOs typically work alongside the primary employer and “both parties might share responsibility for [certain] obligations and be ‘an’ employer” in the context of the performance of those obligations.  Because many PEO’s provide advice and counsel on employment law related policies as part of their services, issues arise when that advice or counsel is wrong and plays a determinative factor in causing an unlawful termination.

New Jersey law provides for strong protections for disabled employees who suffer discrimination at the workplace. What is widely considered as on the most powerful anti-discrimination laws in the country, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination bars discrimination of individuals based on protected characteristics in the terms and conditions of employment. The law specifically prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s disability or perceived disability and requires employers to engage in an interactive process in order to determine whether a reasonable accommodation can be provided to employees with a disability. What exactly this process and the resulting accommodations may consist of has been established by various court case rulings since the law’s passing in 1945.

IMG_1195-300x169

Tynan v. Vicinage 13 is a landmark disability discrimination and failure to reasonable accommodated case that was decided in 2002 by a New Jersey Superior Court in the Appellate Division.  The plaintiff employee in this case was employed by Vicinage 13 of Superior Court as the Hunterdon County Jury Manager.  She suffered from a combination of physical and mental disabilities including migraines, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, and hypertension. The plaintiff claimed that these disabilities were exacerbated by harassment and mistreatment from her supervisor at Vicinage 13. On multiple occasions, her supervisor issued disciplinary actions against Ms. Tyan for minor oversights and threatened to terminate her employment regularly. The stress caused by the severe treatment and allegedly hostile work environment exacerbated Ms. Tynan’s disabilities and caused her to become sicker, both mentally and physically. Ms. Tynan complained formally to the Assistant Trial Court Administrato and the court’s Human Resources Division, describing her disabilities, the supervisor’s behavior, and a need for accommodations. Tynan was provided with a plan to remedy the situation involving processes of mediation between her and her supervisor.

Shortly after this plan was created, Ms. Tynan’s exacerbated medical conditions caused her to require a leave from her employment with Vicinage 13. She was approved for family leave and planned to return approximately 11 months later. During this leave, Ms. Tynan received treatment for various disabilities, particularly for her depression and hypertension. Her treating physicians recommended that Ms. Tynan continue her leave from Vicinage 13, and that it would be important for her to report to a different administrator upon return as a result of the extreme stress that Pardo’s treatment caused Ms. Tynan. At the end of her planned family leave, Ms. Tynan requested additional time off and to report to a different administrator upon return. The employer denied both of these accommodations and told Ms. Tynan that if she did not report to work immediately, she will be considered to have resigned from her position. Ms. Tynan could not return to work as a result of her disabilities and was effectively terminated from her position with Vicinage 13.

On October 8, 2019, the United States Supreme Court will consider three companion cases concerning whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees gay and transgender employees across the nation protection from workplace discrimination. In two cases, the Court will decide whether sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination within the meaning of Title VII. In the third, the Court will decide whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people.  The Supreme Court’s decisions to both these questions will have dramatic impact on the rights (or lack thereof) of LGBT persons throughout the country.

IMG_0999-300x169
The outcomes of these cases will not only have a significant impact on employees’ rights nationwide, they will also have a significant impact on the individual employee-plaintiffs in each lawsuit. For some brief background, their stories are presented below:

(1)       Bostock v. Clayton County