Law Against Discrimination

One Racist Comment Is Enough: How New Jersey Protects Employees From Workplace Harassment Where Other States Don’t

November 3, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

While there are federal and state laws that protect employees from racial discrimination in the workplace throughout the country, these laws are not always uniform in terms of the severity or pervasive enough of the complained of conduct that constitute an actionable hostile work environment. Generally speaking, when the racially discriminatory conduct is so severe or pervasive as to change the nature of the job, a worker has grounds to bring a lawsuit for hostile work environment. But what type of conduct meets the standard for a successful claim? More specifically, can a single instance of race-based discrimination create a hostile work environment? The answer may depend on where the suit is filed. For example, in New Jersey, our courts have held that a single racial epithet can constitute a hostile work environment, while other courts outside New Jersey have adopted a strict rule that a single racial epithet, no matter how offensive, can never be enough to constitute a hostile work environment.

Earlier this month, a judge in the federal district court for the Northern District of Alabama granted a defendant employer summary judgment against three plaintiff employees’ claims of racial discrimination and hostile work environment. In Bone v. Alliance Investment Co., LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01706-LCB (N.D. Ala. Oct. 8, 2020), three African American carpenters sued their employer, claiming that supervisors frequently referred to them as the n-word behind their backs and routinely assigned them more physically demanding work than their white counterparts. One plaintiff was called the n-word directly to his face and others overheard it being used. The company argued that the employees had failed to present evidence that the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms or conditions of their employment. Agreeing, the court dismissed the hostile work environment claim with prejudice.Specifically, the court found that in order to establish a hostile work environment in the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiffs had to show that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” The test for severe and pervasive conduct is both subjective and objective, meaning that the environment became what a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive as well as one that the victim subjectively perceived to be abusive. The court found that although the behavior was subjectively abusive to plaintiffs, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not find the workplace to be hostile. Recognizing the severity of the n-word, the court still held that because the plaintiffs’ job performance was not impacted by it, their claim for hostile work environment failed as a matter of law.

The Bone case is reminiscent of a 2019 case decided by recently appointed Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, when she sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In Smith v. Ill. Dept. of Transportation, 936 F.3d 554 (7^thCir. 2019), an employee for the Illinois Department of Transportation was fired after a probationary period of employment during which he allegedly performed quite poorly. The employee sued the Department, arguing that it had subjected him to a hostile work environment and fired him in retaliation for his complaints about racial discrimination. The Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal of his claims for failing to establish a hostile work environment as a matter of law. In his lawsuit, the employee claimed he was treated differently from other employees due to his race and his supervisor called him the n-word during a confrontation. The employee was fired two weeks after the confrontation. Addressing the hostile work environment claim, the Circuit Court found that the majority of the harassment he cited was unconnected to his race and arose from generally unpleasant and profane language that was used routinely toward all employees. The one incident, however, that plainly constituted race-based harassment was when one of his supervisors called him a “stupid ass [n-word]” after finding out that he had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity office. The Court noted that “while there is no ‘magic number of slurs’ that indicates a hostile work environment, an ‘unambiguously racial epithet falls on the more severe end of the spectrum.’” Even still, a plaintiff cannot win a hostile work environment claim simply by proving that the word was said unless he can also show that it altered the conditions of his employment. Unlike in Bone, the Seventh Circuit Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove even his own subjective belief that being called the n-word created a hostile work environment. The court found that because his entire employment had been rocky, and by the time he was called the n-word his termination proceedings were already under way, there was no proof that the racial slur changed the always unpleasant work environment. Because he could not show that the distress he suffered from being called the n-word was distinct from the distress he suffered routinely at work, the plaintiff’s claim for hostile work environment was dismissed.

Female Professors Sue Rutgers for Equal Pay Violations

October 21, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In the wake of several recent equal pay settlements between female university professors and their employers, the newest litigation of this ilk has popped up in New Jersey. A lawsuit filed under the New Jersey Equal Pay law in state court last week by five women professors at Rutgers University alleges that they are paid significantly less than their male counterparts. Three of the five plaintiffs are world-renowned scholars in their fields, having published multiple books, hundreds of articles, given numerous presentations, and won several awards. In fact, two of the plaintiffs have achieved the most prestigious professional designation at Rutgers, and yet all five are still paid tens of thousands of dollars less than male professors with the same or less impressive credentials.

One of the plaintiffs, Professor Deepa Kumar, who teaches journalism and media studies and is one of the country’s leading experts on Islamaphobia, was hired in 2004 at a salary that was the same or higher than four white men and women who were hired contemporaneously. However, today, Professor Kumar makes approximately $25,000 less per year than other professors in her department despite multiple attempts to negotiate pay raises. Another plaintiff, Professor Judith Storch, a distinguished professor of nutritional sciences, recently learned that her salary was on average $46,000 lower than all other distinguished professors in biomedical science.

Remarkably, Rutgers already has in place a system of review by which professors may request wage increases in order to advance the goal of pay equity. The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit claim that system is not working. In 2018, the University’s faculty union commissioned a study that showed pay discrepancies between male and female faculty members. Overall, women faculty were paid 7% less than men. Over time, that gap can add up to a substantial amount of lost income. Professor Kumar estimates that she has lost over $300,000 since her employment with Rutgers began. Another litigant against Rutgers, Professor Nancy Wolff claims she lost $500,000. Putting that loss into terms of gender inequity, Professor Wolff pointed out that half million dollars that should have been paid to her was instead used by her employer to pay her white male counterparts at significantly higher rates than she was being paid.

Sexual Harassment and Discrimination in New Jersey Police Departments

October 14, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Two recent New Jersey lawsuit settlements highlight the prevalent issues of sexual harassment and sex discrimination that woman police officers continue to face in the workplace. These cases illustrate how important it is for male-dominated work environments such as police departments to take preventative measures against sexual harassment and to take immediate remedial measures when it occurs.

Last month, it was reported that Franklin Township settled a gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit with a female police lieutenant, Kristen Durham for the sum of $300,000. The settlement also allows Durham to remain on paid personal administrative leave until she achieves 25 years of service credit in the New Jersey Division of Pensions, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System.

Durham, of Robbinsville, started working for the Franklin Township Police Department in 1996, where women make up only about ten percent of the department. Durham is the first and only female lieutenant. In her complaint, she alleged that her male supervisors publicly engaged in extramarital affairs and openly discussed their sexual activities. One male supervisor even ordered Durham to watch a subordinate with whom he was having an affair when he was not at work and to report back to him if any male officers spoke to her. Durham’s responsibilities included recruiting for the department and in that capacity, she personally recruited nine African American officers, and often advocated for female, Black and Hispanic officers to receive equal treatment to their white male counterparts in the department.

Princeton University Settles Female Professors Equal Pay Lawsuit for $1.2 million

October 7, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The absence of pay equity between men and women, commonly known as the “gender wage gap” has been a newsworthy yet unresolved manifestation of gender discrimination for decades. Pay inequities exist in virtually all industries and professions and are not limited to gender disparities.

Most recently, one of New Jersey’s premier educational institutions, Princeton University, settled a lengthy dispute over whether it was paying female professors equally to male professors. On average, a full-time professor at Princeton earns over $200,000 per year, but there are variations in pay that Princeton asserts are dependent on department, job performance, and the market-driven economics of filling top spots in academia. But when the U.S. Department of Labor conducted a federal pay discrimination investigation into Princeton’s compensation structure, its findings indicated discriminatory pay practices along gender lines. The Department of Labor’s review of salaries between 2012 and 2014 found that among professors, women were being paid less than men despite holding the same jobs and having the same experience and credentials.

Princeton contested the Department of Labor’s findings for years and still admits no culpability, arguing that the investigation was flawed. It has, however, finally agreed to pay nearly $1.2 million — including $925,000 in back pay and at least $250,000 in future salary adjustments — to female professors, including those who have left the university. Under the Early Resolution Conciliation Agreement between Princeton and the Department of Labor, Princeton will award back pay to the 106 female professors identified by the investigation as having been underpaid between 2012 and 2014 and award future pay raises. Princeton also agreed to analyze faculty salaries at the time of hire and in its annual merit increase process, to make sure there are no future pay gaps between male and female employees. In a statement, a Princeton spokesperson said that the university would engage in hiring initiatives in fields that typically have a low representation of women and encourage women to serve in leadership positions such as deanships. It will also train employees on pay equity.

New Jersey Expands Hate Crime Law

September 14, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation this month that makes it a crime to use 911 as a tool to intimidate another person based on his or her race. The bill, which has already taken effect, was introduced to the State Senate on June 29, 2020. It amends and expands the state’s existing false public alarm statute to include false incrimination and filing a false police report as forms of bias intimidation when they are done in an attempt to intimidate or harass an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.

Bias intimidation has long been a crime in New Jersey, and it occurs when a person is the target of a crime specifically because of his or her race or other protected status. When this additional layer of intent is present in the commission of a crime, it is commonly referred to as a “hate crime”. The penalties for committing a hate crime or bias intimidation are usually harsher and in addition to the penalties for committing the underlying offense. The reason for the harsher penalties is that the charge of bias intimidation is generally considered a crime of one degree higher than the most serious underlying offense. For instance, let’s assume that a Caucasian man ran his car into an African American man as he crossed the street, causing serious bodily harm, and the Caucasian man did so because of his race. Because assault by auto resulting in serious bodily injury is a crime of the fourth degree, the Caucasian driver is subject to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine for assault by auto. When the additional charge of bias intimidation is considered, he is now facing an additional 3-5 years in prison and $15,000 fine.

The state’s new law addressing racially-motivated 911 calls and false police reports appears to work slightly differently, however, by merging bias intimidation with the underlying crime. The statute (found at N.J.S. 2C:33-3), has been amended to add:

Teacher Requests for Leave Are Forcing Some Schools to All-Remote Learning

August 26, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

As schools scramble to figure out how best to reopen in a couple of weeks, with many opting for a fully remote start to the school year, teachers in some districts are faced with an all too familiar problem for working parents. How will they manage teaching in person and caring for their own kids at the same time? In towns that had planned to reopen with in person instruction, an increasing number of teachers whose children will be at home learning remotely are availing themselves of the 12-week leave available to them under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). This leave will allow them to care for their own children while many school buildings and childcare centers remain closed.

The FFCRA is a temporary expansion to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that requires certain employers to provide their employees with paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19. These provisions will apply through December 31, 2020 to covered employers (those with between 50 and 500 employees) and any employee who has been employed for at least 30 days. Employees can request leave at any time, for several reasons, including because the employee must quarantine, a dependent of the employee must quarantine, or for childcare when the child’s school or usual childcare provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19. When the leave is requested for childcare, employees are entitled to up to 12 weeks of partially paid leave that is subtracted from what would otherwise be their FMLA time. Employers of healthcare workers and first responders can opt out of providing this leave, and employers with fewer than 50 employees can opt out of granting leave requests specifically for childcare issues if granting the request would jeopardize the viability of the business.

Teachers who suffer from disabilities may also be entitled to accommodations, including leave of absence, if they can show the requested accommodation is reasonable and supported by medical evidence. The Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers from discriminating against disabled employees in connection the terms and conditions of their employment. The Law Against Discrimination also requires employers to engage in an interactive process with disabled employees who are in need for assistance, and provide them with reasonable accommodations, unless they can show it would be undue hardship on the school’s operations to provide the accommodation.

A Long Way To Go: NJCASA Releases Report on Sexual Harassment in New Jersey Politics

August 19, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

This month the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault (NJCASA) released its report, “It’s Everywhere, It’s Everything: The Report of the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault’s 2020 Survey on Misogyny & Sexual Misconduct in New Jersey Politics.” The report publishes survey results received from employees within New Jersey’s political sphere regarding their experiences of sexual harassment and misconduct in the workplace. It also makes recommendations for improving workplace culture around sexual harassment and misconduct, including increased education and training, the development of transparent, predictable reporting processes, and the creation of a culture of accountability in NJ politics.

Survey respondents held a variety of positions within state politics, including advocates and activists, state government employees, campaign staffers, lobbyists, partisan political operatives, staffers to elected officials, those holding elected office themselves, legislature employees, and county and municipal government employees. The largest reporting groups were advocates and activists (16%), state government employees (13%), campaign staffers (13%) and partisan political operatives (13%). The vast majority of respondents were white (85%), non-immigrant (94%), heterosexual (81%), cisgender (79%), highly-educated (89%) women (78%). As the report acknowledges, this means that this particular study provides a window into the sexual harassment and misconduct experienced and witnessed by a highly privileged group, and indicates that despite holding such privilege, these respondents were often without the proper resources to prevent, report, or obtain justice in the face of harassment and misconduct in the workplace. The report stressed the importance of interpreting the results as framed and informed by one specific type of woman.

It comes as no surprise that most survey participants (57%) reported having either experienced and/or witnessed sexual harassment and misconduct during their work in NJ politics, and that women are far more often the targets of this misconduct and more likely to report it than men. By occupation, 75% of county government employees reported experiencing harassment, and 77% of campaign staffers and 76% of lobbyists reported witnessing it. When defining the specific types of harassment encountered, verbal remarks and misogynistic comments were the most frequently reported and combined make up 45% of the total. Three percent of respondents reported having been raped. State government employees reported that misogyny is “very prevalent” in their workplaces.

Federal Bill Introduced to Protect Primary Caregivers From Workplace Discrimination

August 13, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

On June 5, 2020, new federal legislation was introduced that would protect family caregivers from workplace discrimination. Introduced by United States Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), the Protecting Family Caregivers from Discrimination Act would make it unlawful for an employer to (1) fail or refuse to hire an applicant because of the family caregiver responsibilities of the applicant; or (2) take adverse action or otherwise discriminate against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the family caregiver responsibilities of the employee. The proposed law would also make it unlawful for an employer to interfere with or restrain the employee from exercising his or her rights under the act, and to retaliate against an employee for seeking enforcement of these protections.

The Protecting Family Caregivers from Discrimination Act would be enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and violations would requireproof of disparate treatment by an employer or the disparate impact of an employer’s policies on a caregiver employee. An employee alleging discrimination under this Bill would have a private right of action against his or her employer without being required to file a charge through the EEOC or exhaust any other administrative remedies first.

Primary caregiver discrimination has long been an inadequately addressed problem in our work force, with advocacy groups, research centers, and legal projects fighting for appropriate protections for decades. This legislation is supported and endorsed by many of those groups, including the Center for WorkLife Law, National Employment Law Project, the National Alliance for Caregiving, the Caregiver Action Network, Caring Across Generations, the National Women’s Law Center, A Better Balance, National Partnership for Women & Families, The Arc of the United States, and the National Domestic Workers Alliance.According to a report from the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California-Hastings, the number of employees reporting caregiver discrimination in the workplace increased almost four-fold from 2005 to 2015. The Center for WorkLife Law also reports that 60% of caregiver employees suffer retaliatory action from employers for having family responsibilities, including reduced hours and negative performance reviews. As of 2020, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) found that 53 million Americans care for their dependent family members and 61% of them do so while working at a full-time job.

Questions Arise as to Whether Employers Will be Able to Enforce Arbitration Agreements in Employment Contracts When it Comes to Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation

August 6, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

A New York State trial court recently ruled that the arbitration clause in an employment contract requiring an employee to submit to binding arbitration for claims against her employer, including sexual harassment claims, was unenforceable following amendments to New York State’s Human Rights Law in 2018. The decision creates a split in authority between New York State and federal courts, following a 2019 decision in the Southern District of New York upholding the enforceability of arbitration agreements in employment contracts. That court found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the New York statutory prohibition. These contrasting decisions may create uncertainty around the viability of employee/employer arbitration agreements in New York as they relate to harassment and discrimination claims.

This confusion exists in New Jersey as well. On March 18, 2019, Governor Murphy signed legislation that, among other things, prohibits mandatory arbitration of discrimination, retaliation or harassment claims as against public policy. While other jurisdictions, including New York, have enacted similar legislation pertaining to sexual harassment claims, the New Jersey law covers all claims arising under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The New Jersey law also states that confidential settlement agreements “shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable”. It is important to note that the prohibition of arbitration does not apply to collective bargaining agreements. It remains unclear whether New Jersey courts will find that this state law is preempted by the FAA, but nonetheless, employers run the risk of violating the new law if arbitration provisions are included in employment contracts going forward. The new law is not retroactive. It applies “to all contracts and agreements entered into, renewed, modified or amended on or after” March 18, 2019.

Since the signing of New Jersey’s law prohibiting the inclusion of arbitration agreements in employment contracts, New Jersey courts, both state and federal, have upheld the validity of arbitration clauses that were signed before enactment of the law.

The Duty to Mitigate Damages Applies to All Litigants: Even NFL Coaches

July 16, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

As those of us who are Rutgers football fans know, finding a winning head coach can be very difficult. Unfortunately, the Rutgers football head coach position has become available three times in the past eight years, which means three expensive and time consuming job searches. While there are always a large pool of candidates who would love the opportunity to be the head coach of Rutgers football, there are always some highly qualified candidates who choose to interview for reasons other than actually wanting the job. One example is to gain leverage in securing a better contract from their current coaching position. Another example, is when an unemployed coach who is still owed money under a term contract interviews for a job to prove they are mitigating their damages.

The issue of mitigation of damages has been placed front and center in connection with a federal lawsuit former Arkansas head coach, Bret Bielema has filed against his former employer. According to news reports, Bielema is being accused by his former for failing to mitigate when removing himself as a candidate for the Rutgers position during the search when it became likely Rutgers would be hiring Schiano.

Bielema sued the Arkansas Razorback Foundation for breach of contract by alleging that the school has failed to pay him $7 million in salary he was owed after his no-cause firing. Arkansas claims, however, that Bielema failed to mitigate his damages for failing to use reasonable efforts to secure a comparable coaching job and instead accepting a much lower-paying job in the NFL. The lawsuit, currently pending in federal court, presents an interesting legal issue that many plaintiffs in employment cases are faced with in litigating their claims of wrongful termination or breach of contract. Did Bielema mitigate the damages he claims to have sustained by his termination.