Sex Discrimination

New Jersey Passes “Panic Button Bill” to Protect Hotel Workers from Sexual Harassment

June 27, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In a demonstration of support for and solidarity with New Jersey employees that have experienced sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace, Governor Murphy signed Senate Bill 2986, nicknamed the “Panic Button Bill,” on June 11th, 2019. This bill was introduced to the New Jersey Senate in September of 2018 and, with Governor Murphy’s signature, will take effect in January of 2020. Governor Murphy claims that, with its passage, New Jersey becomes the first state nationwide to enact legislation of its kind. The passing of the legislation is another victory for employees, and particularly victims of sexual harassment in the #MeToo movement.

In an effort to recognize the prevalence of sexual misconduct in specific areas of employment, the New Jersey Senate has targeted the hospitality industry with regulations intended to protect hotel employees from facing such unlawful behavior. The bill states, “[d]ue to the unique nature of hotel work, hotel employees are particularly vulnerable when working alone in hotel guest rooms…this solitary work places them at risk of assault, including sexual assault, and sexual harassment.” This statement was proven true by a horrific case of sexual assault that occurred in 2018, when a 51-year-old house keeper at Billy’s Casino in Atlantic City was forced into a hotel room and sexually assaulted by a guest. This criminal act sparked a widespread demand for safer working conditions for hotel employees.

New Jersey employees are protected from sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the workplace by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes behavior such as inappropriate touching, unwelcome sexual advances, and retaliation for opposing sexual harassment conduct or participating in an investigation into such conduct. These are just some of the many different forms sexual harassment and assault can take. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination requires that employers take the utmost caution in assuring that their employees are not vulnerable to experiencing this type of unlawful behavior. This is the basis for the Panic Button Bill that Governor Murphy signed into law.

Evening the Playing Field: US Women’s Soccer Fights For Equal Pay

June 20, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The FIFA Women’s World Cup has captivated the attention of nations around the world, and the United States is no exception. With the group stage coming to a close this week, the U.S. Women’s National Team (“WNT”) has already demonstrated dominance in their first two games, beating Thailand and Chile by a combined score of 16-0. As the WNT’s World Cup successes have increasingly dominated headlines, the team’s recent lawsuit filed against their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation, Inc. (“USSF”), has attracted increased attention as well. While the team battles to defend their FIFA World Cup title on the pitch, they battle in court to defend their rights, and the rights of women nationwide, to receive equal pay for equal work.

The law has long been that all people in the United States are entitled to equal pay for equal work (regardless of gender, race, or any other protected characteristic), as well as fair employment standards and work conditions. These protections were established with the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and can be traced back to 1868 and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to their Complaint, for decades the WNT has endured grossly unequal pay and inferior working conditions in comparison to the Men’s National Team (“MNT”). This has continued despite the fact that the WNT is demonstrably more successful and produces comparable revenue to the MNT for the USSF, which employs both the WNT and the MNT.

The Complaint filed by the WNT details the pay gap that exists between the two teams. It explains that if a male and female national team player each played 20 exhibition games in one year, the male player would earn an average of $263,320 while the female player would earn a maximum of $99,000. Male players who try out for and earn a place on a World Cup team earn $55,000, while female players only earn $15,000 for the same accomplishment. In 2014, the USSF provided the MNT with performance bonuses totaling $5,375,000 for losing in the Round of 16. By contrast, the WNT only earned $1,725,000 for winning the entire tournament. Despite advancing three rounds further that the MNT, and ultimately winning the entire tournament, WNT players earned less than a third of what the MNT players earned.

JP Morgan-Chase Settles Sex Discrimination Lawsuit With Primary Care Giver (“PCG”) Father Employees

June 12, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

JP Morgan-Chase (“JPMC”) has settled a class action lawsuit brought by male employees who alleged they were denied being provided benefits on equivalent terms as female employees, under JPMC’s primary caregiver (“PCG”) policy. The male plaintiffs in this sex discrimination lawsuit claimed that JPMC treated them differently from their female coworkers between 2011 and 2017, when they were denied the sixteen weeks of parental leave their female coworkers were provided following the birth of their children and instead limiting them to two weeks of parental leave as “secondary caregivers.” The terms of the settlement require that JPMC establish a five million-dollar ($5,000,000) compensation fund to compensate the class of male primary caregivers, comprising nearly 5,000 fathers. The settlement has been jointly presented to Federal Magistrate Judge Michael R. Barrett, of the United States District Court of Ohio, Southern District, for court approval.

Derek Rotondo, the named plaintiff in the lawsuit against JPMC, initiated the suit in 2017 when he was denied status as a primary caregiver. Rotondo alleged that he was told by the company that the mother was the presumptive primary caregiver. As a result, Rotondo was denied the sixteen weeks of leave he sought and should have received as his child’s primary caregiver, and instead was given only two weeks of leave. Shortly after being denied the time he should have been awarded as a primary caregiver, Rotondo filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against JPMC, alleging that this denial of primary caregiver status and thus denial of fourteen (14) weeks of parental leave constituted unlawful gender discrimination in violation of Title VII. JPMC soon after reversed course and granted Rotondo the full sixteen (16) weeks to which he was entitled.

While the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) provides fathers and mothers with the same rights for job protected leave to bond with newborn children or newly adopted children, some companies offer greater job protection or even paid leave to their employees in excess of what is required under Federal law. When an employer offers such additional rights to leave or job protection, these rights must be extended to their employees without reference to or distinction based on that employee’s gender. The issues raised in this lawsuit illustrate the importance for employers to ensure that they treat all employees, regardless of their sex, in the same manner and provide them with the same benefits and privileges of employment.

Court Agrees: “Borgata Babes” Stated Valid Claim for Unlawful Discrimination

June 6, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

A group of female cocktail waitresses – referred to as the “Borgata Babes” – have finally received a win in their suit against the Borgata Hotel and Casino which has now been in the courts for more than a decade. The Atlantic County Superior Court, Appellate Division issued a ruling on May 20, 2019 finding that the Plaintiffs’ claims of gender-based discrimination, based on Borgata’s enforcement of personal appearance standards, should be allowed to proceed to trial. In so ruling, the Appellate Division overturned the trial court and found that, while the standards themselves (including weight, appearance, and sexual appeal) do not violate anti-discrimination laws, Borgata’s enforcement of those standards could constitute gender based harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division remanded the case back to the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with their decision. Unfortunately, this will only potentially benefit the five remaining Plaintiffs, out of the original twenty-one “Borgata Babes” who began the suit in 2008. At that time, the Plaintiffs’ alleged that they were humiliated and harassed by Borgata’s management in efforts to have Plaintiffs comply with and meet Borgata’s personal appearance standards.

The standards imposed on the “Borgata Babes” do not automatically violate anti-discrimination employment laws because of the niche role that these employees fill for the hotel-casino. The physical appearance standards are permissible because “Borgata Babes” are not merely servers or waitresses, they are also expected to work as models and hosts to entertain Borgata’s guests and give those guests a Las Vegas experience in their Atlantic City location. Thus, “Borgata Babes” are displayed as physically fit and are attired in costumes meant to emphasize their physical attractiveness. Maintaining this image is mandatory for a “Borgata Bab” to keep their job.

Federal Court Refuses to Apply New Jersey Equal Pay Act Retroactively

February 7, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The “Diane B. Allen” New Jersey Equal Pay Act was enacted in April 2018, and made effective as of July 1, 2018. In passing the Equal Pay Act, the legislature did not expressly state that the law would be applied retroactively to claims that arise before July 1, 2018. In September 2018, the first court decision applying the New Jersey Equal Pay Act was decided by the United States District Judge William Martini of the District of New Jersey in Perrotto v. Morgan Advanced Materials, which held that that the New Jersey Equal Pay Act should not be applied retroactively since the legislature did not specifically provide so.

Since its enactment, the New Jersey Equal Pay Act has widely been recognized as providing the strongest protections to workers of any equal pay law in the United States. The New Jersey Equal Pay Act, which amended New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, prohibits discriminatory pay practices for protected classes for performing substantially similar work. The law is not limited to gender-based pay discrimination, but also includes other protected classes such as race, disability and age. Under the law, an illegal employment practice occurs every time an employee is impacted by a discriminatory compensation decision.

The New Jersey Equal Pay Act also provides for broad protections against retaliation for employees who seek redress from discriminatory pay practices. Specifically, it prohibits an employer from taking reprisals against any employee for requesting from, disclosing with, or disclosing to an employee or former employee or a lawyer from whom he or is she seeking legal advice or governmental agency for information regarding the job title, occupational category, and rate of compensation on the basis of a protected trait such as sex, race, disability, age or others.

New Jersey Sexual Harassment Law: Revisiting Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us

January 15, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In the midst of a national discussion regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, the laws prohibiting such egregious behavior as well as the methods of reporting and investigating related complaints have come under scrutiny. Many businesses across the country are reviewing their anti-harassment policies to become legally compliant and limit their liability when sexual harassment occurs at their workplace. In New Jersey, a claim of sexual harassment was first recognized in 1993, in the landmark New Jersey Supreme Court case Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us. Commonly referred to as Lehman by New Jersey employment lawyer and judges, this case set the standard for stating a cause of action for a claim of sexual harassment that created a hostile work environment.

Sexual harassment cases are typically divided into two categories: quid pro quo harassment or harassment that generates a hostile work environment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when an employer or supervisor attempts to make an employee submit to sexual demands as a condition of his or her employment. Sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment was ill defined prior to 1993, which made Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us the landmark case for sexual harassment cases in New Jersey.

In 1986, Ms. Theresa Lehmann’s employment with Toys ‘R’ Us was drastically altered upon the hiring of Don Baylous as the Director of Purchasing Administration. Under his supervision, Ms. Lehmann and her female coworkers began to experience pervasive sexual harassment that varied from sexualized comments about Ms. Lehmann’s breasts to an instance where Mr. Baylous physically pulled Ms. Lehmann’s shirt over her head to expose her breasts. Ms. Lehmann attempted to report the conduct to several managers, but very little was done to remedy the situation. Instead of addressing Mr. Baylous’s behavior, Ms. Lehmann was offered a transfer to a different department. She rejected this, and later resigned as a result of the harassing conduct and the retaliation she experienced from reporting it. In response to this inadequate managerial reaction, Ms. Lehmann submitted a formal legal complaint of sexual harassment that was initially heard by a trial court. The trial court dismissed all causes of action except battery. Ms. Lehmann appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of her claims of a hostile work environment brought on by sexual harassment, which they remanded for further fact finding. The case eventually found its way to the New Jersey Supreme Court, where it developed into a monumental case in New Jersey court history.

When is an Employer Responsible for Sexual Harassment?

January 2, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Most people know what sexual harassment is when they see it. Whether an employer is responsible for sexual harassment that occurs at the workplace, however, is a more complicated fact specific inquiry.

It is first important to understand the definition of unlawful sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The first form of sexual harassment is quid pro quo harassment. A claim of quid pro sexual harassment occurs when an employer attempts to make an employee’s submission upon a sexual demand or sexual proposition a condition of employment. The second form of sexual harassment is a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment. The elements of a hostile work environment sexual harassment is when the harassment (1) would not have occurred but for the employee’s sex, and the harassment was (2) severe and pervasive enough to make a (3) reasonable woman believe that (4) the conditions of the employment are altered and the working environment is hostile or abusive.

The first issue to determining whether an employer can be liable for sexual harassment that occurs at its workplace in a lawsuit is to identify the damages an employee is seeking in the case. An employer will be liable for equitable damages and relief if he or she seeks restoration of the terms, conditions and privileges of employment that he or she would have enjoyed but for the discrimination or sexual harassment. Equitable relief is not money damages. Instead, an employee who seeks equitable relief as a result of sexual harassment is looking for the court to require the employer to act or refrain from performing a particular act such as stopping the harassment, job reinstatement or other non-monetary relief.

Orchestra Pay Scales Out of Tune: Boston Symphony Orchestra Sued for Gender Based Wage Discrimination

December 27, 2018 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In July 2018 Elizabeth Rowe, the principal flutist and Walter Piston chair in the Boston Symphony Orchestra (“BSO”), filed a gender discrimination lawsuit alleging that the BSO violated the newly enacted Massachusetts Equal Pay Act. Rowe argues that the BSO was paying her less to perform substantially similar work – when viewed in terms of skill, effort, and responsibility – than it was paying her male counterparts, simply because she was a woman and they were men. Gender is a protected class, under the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act and most other civil rights statutes, and discriminating on the basis of one’s membership in a protected class is against the law.

Rowe framed her argument by pointing to one of her BSO colleagues, the orchestra’s principal oboist John Ferrillo. As another principal in the orchestra, Ferrillo holds a similar position to Rowe, and yet his salary is nearly $65,000 greater than hers. Comparing these two positions is naturally an imperfect exercise, as an oboe and a flute are obviously different instruments. A rough approximation can be made by looking at one piece of objective data: since joining the BSO in 2004, Rowe has performed as a soloist 27 times, while Ferrillo has performed as a soloist just 14 times. Notably, Ferrillo supports Rowe’s efforts to obtain equal pay. At the request of Rowe’s employment attorney, Ferrillo provided a statement of his opinion that Rowe was “every bit [his] match in skill, if not more so.”

Rowe’s case provides a look at the problem of gender discrimination on the individual level, but it is a systemic issue in orchestras, and can be difficult to isolate due to the many factors that impact salary decisions. The BSO has raised some of these factors in defending the discrepancy in Rowe’s pay: the talent pool for certain instruments is deeper and thus they are in lower demand; individual players can be uniquely talented leading to a bidding war over their services; random factors akin to ‘right time, right place’ can come into play. When looking at some nation-wide statistics, however, these explanations become dubious. As the Washington Post reported, an analysis of 78 top-earners from 21 orchestras in the United States shows that: (1) 82% of those top-earners are men; (2) the men in the pool make on average just over $52,000 more than the women; and (3) the top male earner makes $535,789 while the top female earner makes only $410,912.

What is Unlawful Workplace Sexual Harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

December 12, 2018 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The #MeToo movement has brought long overdue attention to the systemic societal problems concerning workplace sexual harassment throughout the United States and the State of New Jersey. Most sexual harassment claims by a New Jersey employee are brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, a state statute. While a New Jersey employee or resident may also bring a claim of sexual harassment under the federal statute, Title VII, most New Jersey employment lawyers counsel clients to proceed with their sexual harassment claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). This blog outlines the various types of workplace sexual harassment claims brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

In enacting New Jersey’s anti-discrimination law, the state legislature expressly declared “discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of the inhabitants of the State but menaces the institutions and foundation of a democratic State.” N.J.S.A.10:5-3. New Jersey courts interpreting the LAD have long and consistently recognized that employers are best situated to avoid or eliminate impermissible, pernicious employment practices relating to sexual harassment, to implement corrective measures to stop future sexual harassment, and to adopt and enforce employment policies that will serve to achieve the salutary purposes of the legislative mandate to end workplace discrimination. New Jersey courts consistently remind us that the overarching goal of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is nothing less than the eradication of the cancer of discrimination.

There are different claims of sexual harassment that are actionable against an employer. These include claims of hostile work environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and sexual harassment retaliation.

EEOC Releases Preliminary Report Showing Increase in Sexual Harassment Claims in 2018

October 11, 2018 | Smith Eibeler LLC

On October 4, 2018 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released the preliminary report of the sexual harassment data they collected for fiscal year 2018 (ending September 30, 2018). This report shows that the #MeToo movement has had a widespread impact on reporting of sexual harassment and related workplace abuses.

The EEOC is the federal agency of the United States charged with administering and enforcing civil right laws against workplace discrimination including claims of sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Individuals who have suffered wrongful termination or discrimination at the workplace can file a charge with the EEOC by themselves or through the assistance of a private employment lawyer. The EEOC was formed in 1965 and maintains its headquarters in Washington, DC with offices throughout the United States, including New Jersey.

Over the course of the past year, there has been a seismic shift in the way that sexual harassment has been viewed and addressed across all aspects of our society in large part due to the #MeToo movement. Nowhere has this change been seen more drastically than in the incidents of sexual harassment at the workplace. In the past year there has been a reckoning across the United States, with a clear message being sent to harassers that discriminatory and harassing behavior and conduct will no longer be tolerated at the workplace, our schools or in any other circumstances.