Articles Posted by Lisa Gingeleskie

On March 16, 2022, the New Jersey Appellate Division concluded in Davis v. Disability Rights of New Jersey that a plaintiff-employee’s privacy interests in her social medial posts and personal cell phone bills did not restrict her employer’s right to the production of these records when defending against claims that the plaintiff’s termination violated New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (the “NJLAD”) and caused her to suffer emotional distress.  This decision is the first in New Jersey to detail the scope of discovery regarding a litigant’s private social media posts.

The Background

In Davis, the plaintiff filed a NJLAD complaint against her former employer alleging wrongful termination and emotional distress. In its discovery requests, the employer demanded that the plaintiff produce copies of all her social media content “concerning any emotion, sentiment or feeling of [p]laintiff, as well as events that could reasonably be expected to evoke an emotion, sentiment, or feeling.” The employer also sought the production of the plaintiff’s personal cell phone bills on the grounds that she had used her personal cell phone to perform work duties remotely.

On February 22, 2023, the United States Supreme Court in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt  held that a highly compensated executive employee paid a guaranteed daily rate is not paid on a ‘salary basis’ and therefore, is a nonexempt employee entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The decision should alert employers to review their classification of employees as exempt versus nonexempt to ensure compliance with applicable federal and state requirements.

The Fair Labor Standards Act

While the FLSA requires that most employees be paid overtime for work time in excess of 40 hours, it exempts several categories of positions from that requirement. The most common exemptions from overtime are referred to as the “white-collar exemptions,” which include executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, IT professionals, and highly compensated executive positions.

On February 6, 2023, Governor Murphy signed new legislation into law significantly expanding the rights of temporary workers. The law, known as the “Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights” (A1474/S511), is aimed at advancing pay equity, increasing government oversight of temporary staffing agencies, and prohibiting retaliatory conduct against temporary workers. A1475/S511 applies to workers in designated classifications, including protective services, food preparation, construction labor and trade, personal care services, and building, grounds cleaning, and maintenance occupations. The range of protections afforded by the new law, as outlined below, are expansive and will have significant implications on staffing agencies as well as third-party clients who utilize these agencies to place temporary workers.

New Protections

Equal Pay and Benefits

On September 6, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) addressing the standard for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. Under the proposed rule, two or more employers would be considered joint employers if they “share or codetermine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment.” If finalized, the rule would explicitly rescind the NLRB’s most recent overhaul of the joint employer standard that raised the bar to attain joint employer status and will undoubtedly result in many more joint employer situations.

The Joint Employer Standard’s Seesaw History

Over the past decade, joint employer status has been gone back and forth dramatically as the composition and political control of the Board has shifted.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) recently adopted new and amended regulations concerning the “Display of Official Posters of the Division on Civil Rights.” Under these regulations, covered employers must display revised posters advising employees of their rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) and the New Jersey Family Leave Act (“FLA”). Both the LAD and FLA posters must be printed on 8 ½” by 11″ paper (or larger) and contain text that is fully legible. The official posters can be found on the DCR’s website located here and here. Employers should immediately replace their now outdated LAD and FLA posters with the updated ones.

New electronic posting option: The new regulations now expressly allow employers to satisfy the posting requirement by displaying posters electronically on an internet or intranet site accessible to all employees. Additionally, the new regulations require employers to distribute the updated posters annually on or before December 31st and upon an employee’s first request.

Additional posting requirements: As a reminder, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development also requires employers to display posters regarding child labor, workers’ compensation, wage and hour rules, payment of wages, unemployment insurance, temporary disability benefits, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), family leave insurance, records, the SAFE Act (if you have 20 or more employees), gender equity (if you have 50 or more employees), paid sick leave, and worker misclassification.

President Biden is expected to sign a bill amending the Federal Arbitration Act by banning pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements for sexual harassment and sexual assault disputes. The proposed law, “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021,” is the latest in a series of workplace changes initiated by the #MeToo movement.

Sexual assault and harassment claims no longer subject to mandatory arbitration. The amendment prohibits the enforcement of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements, as well as agreements prohibiting participation in a joint, class or collective action in any forum “at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, or the named representative of a class or in a collective action alleging such conduct.” The Act also provides that any dispute as to whether or not a claim falls within the scope of the Act’s prohibitions will be decided by a court, not an arbitrator, irrespective of the designation set forth in the arbitration agreement. Although the bill bans pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate sexual harassment and sexual assault claims, employees can still voluntarily elect for arbitration after the claim arises. This carve-out was intended to allow victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment to voluntarily avoid going through the often-public process of the court system.

Under the legislation, the term “sexual assault dispute” retains the same definition as used in 18 U.S. Code §2246 as one “involving non-consensual sexual act or sexual conduct.” The term “sexual harassment dispute” is defined as one “relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment.” Sexual harassment is narrowly redefined under the Act to only include the following behaviors: a) unwelcome sexual advances, b) unwanted physical contact that is sexual in nature, including assault, c) unwanted sexual attention, including unwanted sexual comments and propositions for sexual activity, d) conditioning professional, educational, consumer, health care, or long-term care benefits on sexual activity, and e) retaliation for rejecting unwanted sexual attention. Notably, this definition does not include other forms of harassment that are not sexual in nature but may nonetheless constitute gender-based discrimination (e.g., disparate pay between similarly situated male and female employees).

Can an individual get damages for the emotional distress suffered as a result of violations under the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C.A. §701 to 796 (1973))? What if that is the only harm suffered and they have no financial losses? Can an organization still be liable? In New Jersey, the answer to these questions is likely yes.

The Rehabilitation Act (the “RA”) provides that individuals with a disability cannot be “excluded from, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under” programs that receive federal funding. Individuals who believe they were discriminated against may sue an organization under the RA, alleging a violation. There is a split among Circuit Courts, however, as to whether emotional distress damages are an available remedy under the Act. For example, the Fifth Circuit Court has found that emotional distress damages are not warranted. In Cummings v. Premier Rehab, a deaf and legally blind patient filed suit against a physical therapy provider that refused to provide her with an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter. The plaintiff sought emotional distress damages only. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, and held that because emotional distress damages are not available under a “breach of contract” case, they are not available under the RA.

Conversely, the Eleventh Circuit Court in Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., found that emotional distress damages were warranted where a deaf plaintiff and her service dog were prohibited from accompanying her minor son into his MRI. The Court explained that even where only emotional distress was suffered by the plaintiff, it was nonetheless sufficient to award damages, noting that it was “the only available remedy to make good the wrong done.” Importantly, the plaintiff did not need to show physical symptoms of her emotional distress in order to recover damages.

In early 2020, Governor Murphy signed a series of bills aimed at identifying and penalizing businesses for misclassification of employees as independent contractors.  On July 8, 2021, New Jersey enacted four additional laws to further its previous efforts to combat misclassification of workers.

A5890: Injunctions and Stop-Work Orders  

This law, effective immediately, allows the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“DOL”) to seek a superior court injunction to prevent ongoing violations of State wage, benefit, and tax laws stemming from employee misclassification.  Previously alleged violations were handled administratively before the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”).  Under this new law, the Commissioner can bypass the OAL and go straight to court.  If the Commissioner prevails, all remedies are available to the victims of misclassification.   Additionally, the Court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation and investigation costs.  Determining whether to pursue an enforcement action is left to the “sole discretion” of the Commissioner.

As employers look to reopen their doors following the COVID-19 pandemic, many are faced with a variety of legal questions concerning the issuance of mandatory vaccinations and other workplace safety protocols.  To minimize liability and best address these legal challenges, it is critical that employers are aware of both their rights and obligations under state and federal law before bringing employees back into the workplace.

Requiring COVID-19 Vaccinations and Proof of Vaccinations

In the absence of any state law to the contrary, employers are free to mandate vaccinations in the workplace.  When making this decision, however, employers must first determine whether a mandated vaccine policy is necessary given the nature of their workplace.  For example, certain service industries (i.e. restaurants) may feel compelled to mandate vaccinations in order to appear safer and therefore more attractive to their public clientele.  Conversely, other industries may find that mandating vaccines may have a negative impact on employee morale and therefore decide to simply encourage their employees to vaccinate.  Employers must carefully engage in a cost-benefit analysis tailored to the nature of their specific business when deciding whether to impose a mandatory vaccine policy.

Employee Recruitment

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.  Employers must be mindful of recruiting and hiring with Equal Employment Opportunity principles in mind and must implement practices that ensure recruitment and hiring decisions are not based on an employee’s protected status.  Applications should be screened consistently – the same standards should be applied to everyone applying for the same position.  Employers should also be mindful of the possible need to accommodate applicants who need assistance because of their medical condition or religious beliefs.  For example, you may need to help a person with carpal tunnel syndrome fill out an application, or you may need to reschedule an interview originally scheduled for a religious holiday if the applicant’s religious beliefs prevent her from working on that day.

 The Fair Credit Reporting Act and Background Checks