Employment Law Monitor : Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard Law Firm : NJ, Mid-Atlantic Wage & Hour, Wrongful Termination

On October 19, 2011, the Appellate Division affirmed a trial court’s decision that abrasive, abusive, and condescending conduct toward employees does not, on its own, equate to a hostile work environment claim if the workplace conditions were the same for men and women. In other words, while the law protects against harassment motivated by a protected category such as race, gender, or religion, it does not guarantee a civil or courteous environment.

In Miceli v. Lakeland Automotive Corp., A-302-10T2, the Appellate Division considered the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lakeland Automotive Corporation (“Lakeland”). Miceli, the only female car salesperson at Lakeland, brought a gender discrimination claim under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to 49, against her former employer, Lakeland. She alleged that on three occasions a male co-worker abused, belittled, and harassed her. The scope of the alleged abusive language included the co-worker yelling at her saying she was “going to get hers” and that her “day is coming.” Miceli also complained that her supervisor permitted this conduct and directed his own abrasive behavior toward her by speaking to her (and other employees) in an angry, belittling, and condescending manner, and making statements in front of her and everyone else about his frustrations with the employees’ work.

The trial judge initially denied Lakeland’s pre-discovery motion for summary judgment, noting that the conduct complained of, “while it is impolite, while it is boorish, while it is probably reflective of a lack of human kindness, does not seem to be predicated upon . . . sexist conduct.” Nevertheless, the trial court denied the motion so that plaintiff could pursue discovery. Following discovery, Lakeland renewed its motion for summary judgment, and the Court granted it, finding that Miceli did not allege sufficient additional proofs “that the conflicts and altercations between herself and both the sales manager and the co-worker were motivated by her gender,” other than Miceli’s “blanket assertions.”

On appeal, Miceli argued, among other things, that Lakeland had a duty to eliminate the abusive behavior that constituted a “hostile work environment” in violation of LAD. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, recognizing that “there is no LAD violation if the same conduct would have occurred regardless of [Miceli’s] sex.”

The Appellate Division reasoned that the sales manager did not permit the conduct to continue as he addressed each incident about which Miceli complained and warned the co-worker that he would be terminated if problems continued. Moreover, plaintiff admitted that her supervisor’s abrasiveness was not limited to plaintiff, but that “[e]veryone complained about [the sales manager].” Miceli even admitted that the sales manager treated two other male co-workers abusively. She explained that the sales manager was “[j]ust an angry person all together.”

The Appellate Division concluded that, although rude and obnoxious, “there is no evidence to suggest that the co-worker’s conduct . . . was motivated by gender.” “Personality conflicts, albeit severe, do not equate to hostile work environment claims simply because the conflict is between a male and a female employee.” citing Herman v. Coastal Corp., 348 N.J. Super. 1, 20-21 (App. Div. 2002).

Even though “boorish” behavior may not be unlawful, employers should implement and enforce appropriate workplace guidelines. Also, if issues arise, employers should consult legal counsel regarding the remediation of and potential exposure for acts of their employees and obtain guidance on the best course of action to pursue to avoid and/or minimize liability for such acts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, __ N.J. __ (December 2, 2010), the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether an employee’s taking, copying and dissemination of an employer’s confidential documents can be a protected activity under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”). After balancing LAD’s strong public policy of eradicating discrimination in the workplace against the legitimate interests of employers, the Court ruled that in certain circumstances the copying and dissemination of confidential information by an employee can constitute a protected activity.

In Quinlan, Ms. Quinlan, an employee of Curtis-Wright, sued the company alleging gender discrimination in violation of LAD. To support her case, Ms. Quinlan gathered over 1,800 pages of company documents that she believed supported her claim that she had been subjected to gender discrimination by being passed over for a promotion. Some of those documents contained confidential personal information of other employees. While her lawsuit was pending, the company discovered that plaintiff had copied the confidential documents and provided them to her attorney, who used some of them during a deposition in the case. As a result of this discovery, the employer terminated plaintiff for alleged theft of company property. Ms. Quinlan subsequently amended her complaint to include a claim for retaliation.

The trial court ruled that plaintiff’s taking of the documents was not a protected activity, but the later use of the documents by her attorney at a deposition was. At trial, the jury found that plaintiff had been fired in retaliation for the protected use of the documents at a deposition, and awarded Ms. Quinlan over $10 million in damages, inclusive of attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that neither the taking of documents, nor their use at a deposition was a protected activity. The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed, affirming the jury award and holding that, under certain circumstances, an employee’s taking and disclosure of documents relating to a discrimination claim can be a protected activity.

In reaching its ruling, the Supreme Court attempted to balance the respective interests of both plaintiffs asserting LAD claims and employers. The Court set forth seven factors to be considered by trial courts to determine whether the taking and dissemination of a document is protected: (1) how the employee obtained the document; (2) what the employee did with the document; (3) the nature and content of the document at issue; (5) the circumstances of the disclosure and whether it was unduly disruptive to the employer; (6) the employee’s expressed reason for copying the document as opposed to requesting it through discovery; and (7) how the court’s decision impacts the public policy embodying LAD and the effect permitting or precluding the use of the documents will have on balancing the legitimate rights of both employers and employees.

In light of the Quinlan decision, employers should not immediately assume that they can terminate an employee who has asserted a LAD claim if that employee copies or removes documents from the workplace without authorization. Nor should employees who have asserted LAD claims assume that they are free to copy and disseminate their employer’s documents. In both situations, such decisions should be made only after careful consideration and consultation with counsel.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to the New Jersey Supreme Court in Nini v. Mercer County Community College (decided June 1, 2010), New Jersey employers can refuse to hire or promote individuals who are over 70 years of age on the basis of age, but will violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., if the employer refuses to renew a contract for the same reason. LAD prohibits an employer from refusing to hire, firing or otherwise discriminating against an employee because of a protected category such as age. However, LAD contains what is known as the “over 70 exception”, which provides that, “nothing herein contained shall be construed to bar an employer from refusing to accept for employment or to promote any person over 70 years of age….” N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a). Thus, a New Jersey employer can refuse to hire or promote an individual who is over 70 years old on the basis of that individual’s age without running afoul of LAD. The Court in Nini, however, held that the “over 70 exception” does not apply to the non-renewal of a contract, likening a non-renewal to a termination, which is unlawful, instead of a refusal to hire. In reaching this holding, the Court relied upon LAD’s remedial nature and strong public policy of eradicating discrimination in the workplace.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 15, 2010, Governor Christie signed into law a bill clarifying the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq., as it applies to persons with a developmental disability. This law amends the definition of “disability” in the NJLAD to expressly include “autism spectrum disorders.” N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(q).

In light of the amendment, employers should review their equal opportunity and anti-discrimination policies to ensure those policies comply with the amended law.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was recently expanded with the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the “Amendments Act”), which brings the ADA more in line with the already broad New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”). The Amendments Act modifies the ADA in many significant areas. First, the Amendments Act significantly expands the previous requirement that to qualify as a covered disability, a condition must be an impairment that “substantially limits one or more major life activities.’ By expanding the interpretation of “substantially limits” in favor of finding disability coverage, the Amendments Act will lead to more conditions qualifying as disabilities. Similarly, the Amendments Act expands those “major life activities” that are subject to the disability definition. The Amendments Act also requires that when considering whether or not an individual is disabled, employers and courts may not take account of “the ameliorative effects of remediating measures.” Under previous law, an employer was to consider whether an employee was subject to medication, equipment or other intervention that improved his or her limitation in assessing a disability. The Amendments Act prohibits consideration of such mitigating measures, which again will favor findings of disability coverage.

Along the same lines, the Amendments Act expands the “regarded as” disabled language by providing that an individual will be “regarded as” having a disability if he/she “establishes that [he] has been subject to action prohibited under this act because of an actual physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” Accordingly, it will no longer matter whether an employee who is “regarded as” having an impairment actually has the limitation. Finally, the Amendments Act will expand coverage for impairments that are “episodic or in remission” as they are now covered conditions if they would “substantially limit” a “major life activity.” Although the Amendments Act may have little practical effect on New Jersey employers who were already subject to the NJLAD’s broad interpretation of “disability”, employers should take this opportunity to ensure that their policies and practices are in line with both of these laws and that supervisors and managers are trained to recognize employees who may be protected under these important laws.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link