Alexander v Seton Hall University – NJ Employment Law Cases

Discrimination law encompasses many different types of actions and discrimination can take many different forms. This is why it is important to contact lawyers such as Tayeb Hyderally whose expertise lies in the field of employment law. The world of employment law can be difficult to figure out if you do not have help from a qualified legal expert. Ty Hyderally is just that and has many years of successful litigation behind him. It is important for employees and employers to stay informed on the constantly changing world of employment law, especially as it pertains to discrimination. Tayeb Hyderally makes it his business to help companies and individuals be aware of their rights and responsibilities in this area. Alexander v Seton Hall University was a case that made everyone take a second look at New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

In Alexander v Seton Hall University three professors who were female and over 60 years old sued the school. Their claim was that they were paid less than male colleagues who were much younger. They used one annual report filed by the university for the 2004-2005 school year. The report made it obvious that Seton Hall indeed paid younger male professors higher amounts than older female members of the faculty.

The trial court dismissed the case stating that the discriminatory actions occurred more than two years prior to when the employees filed suit. The statute of limitations sets a limit for discriminatory wages at two years. New Jersey’s Appellate Division also upheld this decision based on Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in 2007. This case was decided by the US Supreme Court and set the time limitations for such cases.

However, the New Jersey Supreme Court did not agree with these two lower courts. Although the lower courts can use federal law cases for guidance, it does not have to follow the rulings, especially when concerning the LAD. The NJ Supreme Court ruled that each time a discriminatory payment was made it was a separate violation of the law and the two year limit applies to each one.

The Ledbetter case received much criticism since many times employees do not know for a very long time that they are being paid less than other colleagues. If they are unaware that they are being paid considerably less it is difficult to file a suit. It is very possible that the statute of limitations can be surpassed long before an employee becomes aware that their pay is less than other employees. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was passed in response to the case to bring a balance to the law. This act makes it a separate violation each time an employee is given benefits, paid wages or receives any compensation that is based upon a prior discriminatory decision.

Alexander v Seton Hall University made it clear that one can sue when they receive lower wages based on discriminatory decisions. However, it also reminds employees that it is very important to make a timely claim and not wait too long to file suit.

Gorzynski v JetBlue Airways Corp – Employment Law Cases

There are some common misconceptions regarding employment law as it pertains to various cases of sexual harassment. It is very important to contact lawyers such as Ty Hyderally who are experts in this arena. Many think that there is only one set way to deal with a situation where sexual harassment has occurred, or continues to occur. One important factor that must be considered is the company policy pertaining to such issues. According to employment law regulations the steps an employee must take when sexual harassment occurs should be clearly drawn out so that there is no misunderstanding. Employment law specialists such as Tayeb Hyderally must sort through the various circumstances regarding each individual situation to ensure that employees and employers are covered in such cases. One case that was somewhat different from the classic cases dealing with this issue is Gorzynski v JetBlue Airways Corp.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from harassing or discriminating against their employees because of their race, sex, religion, color or national origin. In cases where a supervisor harasses someone assigned to work under them the company must prove that they did everything within reason to correct the situation and prevent further instances. They may also have a defense if the employee that was harassed did not object to it or deal with the situation according to the company’s set policies regarding harassment.  The difference in the Gorzynski case against JetBlue Airways was that the victim only complained to the harasser and to no one else in the company. Is that enough to build a case on? It would certainly depend largely on the company’s policies.

Diane Gorzynski was a crewmember for JetBlue Airways Corporation when she was subjected to sexual harassment. According to Ms. Gorzynski, James Celeste, her supervisor, made massaging gestures and stated he wanted to massage her breasts. He frequently made many different statements containing offensive sexual content; and making sexual gestures while on the job. He grabbed female crewmembers by the waste and tried to tickle them on several occasions. The Second Circuit agreed that his behavior possible created a work environment that was sexually hostile for Ms. Gorzynski.

It seems Ms. Gorzynski did comply with JetBlue’s policy regarding sexual harassment. According to the employee handbook it is to be reported to the immediate supervisor, another member of management or the HR department. Ms. Gorzynski objected to the sexual harassment to Mr. Celeste on many different occasions. However, she did not file complaints with anyone else when the harassment did not cease. Her reasoning was that the HR department had retaliated against other employees who had filed similar complaints at work; and other supervisors had been unreceptive to other complaints she had filed.

The initial claim for sexual harassment was dismissed because she did not complain to any other company agent. But the Second Circuit disagreed with this ruling and declared a jury would have to decide. It was upheld that each individual circumstance is unique. They also recognized the courage it took for Ms. Gorzynski to address the situation to her supervisor understanding that there could be retaliation. It was reasonable for her situation to not complain to another supervisor.

Haybarger v Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole

Employment law covers a wide range of situations. This variety of interests is why expert lawyers such a Tayeb Hyderally pursued the area as a career. Employment law NJ is a field that is undergoing constant changes as different types of cases are presented before the courts of the land and precedent setting judgments are handed down. In most instances, these types of cases have an effect on other cases for years to come.

One such case is Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole. The issue surrounded an employee’s rights regarding FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act). In this particular case the question was if a supervisor could personally be held liable for violations of FMLA.

Debra Haybarger worked at the Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole agency as an office manager. Her immediate supervisor was William Mancino, who was the Department Director. Ms. Haybarger suffered from several serious illnesses such as kidney problems, heart disease and Type II diabetes. These medical conditions were the cause of her frequent absences from work. Although Mancino was well aware of her medical conditions he repetitively noted in performance evaluations that she should reduce her absences. He also questioned her constantly about her reasons for needing to see physicians frequently.  Mancino carried out disciplinary action against Ms. Haybarger by placing her on 6 months’ probation stating that she lacked leadership abilities. He finally secured the proper authorizations and fired her when he felt like there was no improvement in her performance.

Ms. Haybarger filed suit against the Probation Department, Lawrence County and Mancino based on violations of the FMLA. The case was dismissed by the federal district court on the idea that Mancino was not her “employer.” However, Haybarger appealed the decision of the district court to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit noted that Mancino was considered Haybarger’s employer according to the guidelines set forth in the FMLA. Mancino was acting directly in the interest of the employer which put him in the position of “employer” and therefore could be found liable for violating FMLA guidelines.  The Court based its findings on previous FLSA case laws which mean that any individual who exercises supervisor authority over another while acting in the interest of the company, or employer is subject to FMLA liability.

In this particular employment law case, the court found that Mancino was able to exercise sufficient control over the employment of Ms. Haybarger. He was her immediate supervisor, periodically completed performance reviews, had the authority to issue discipline and ultimately recommended that she be terminated. Therefore, as an individual supervisor he was held liable since he had direct authority over her position.

It is important for employers and supervisors to be well educated on FMLA guidelines and be familiar with their responsibilities regarding these regulations. Ty Hyderally is regularly a keynote speaker whose intent is to inform employees and employers of their rights and responsibilities regarding employment law in the workplace.

Gregory v. Derry Township School District – New Jersey Employment Law Cases

The decision rendered in this particular case remains unpublished. This simply means that it does not set a legal precedent. Cases like Gregory v. Derry Township School District are a good reminder of the need to seek legal help in the area of employment law in New Jersey. Seeking legal aid from expert lawyers in the New Jersey area such as Ty Hyderally can be beneficial in receiving favorable decision by the courts.

Many times a company will offer benefits to employees who are being laid off or fired. This is part of a separation package or severance agreement that is offered by companies. Usually these are agreements wherein the employee waives their employment law rights prior to receiving certain benefits. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made a ruling that Ms. Rhauni Gregory waived her rights to be able to sue the company for discrimination when she signed a release. She claimed that she was pressured into signing and was only allowed to review it for 15 minutes.

The Third Circuit Federal Appellate Court handles appeals that come through the New Jersey district. This court ruled that the court needed to consider the circumstances from a broader perspective when deciding whether or not an employee had indeed waived legal rights. There are several things that they felt like should be taken into consideration. For instance, the specific language that is used in the release as well as the employee’s business and educational experiences should be considered. The employee also needs to know that they were giving up all of their legal rights upon signing a release. It is also important to note whether or not the employee received encouragement to obtain advice from a lawyer such as Tayeb Hyderally; or whether or not they were given the opportunity to negotiate the specific terms of the agreement. And whether the employee was to receive any other benefits as a result of signing the agreement or release should be a factor.

After looking at all of these factors, the court decided that Rhauni Gregory had waived her rights to bring a race discrimination claim against the school district when she signed the Separation Agreement and General Release. Ms. Gregory felt that she was forced into a resignation when her supervisor evaluated her job performance as unfavorable. After the poor evaluation she was placed in an “intensive assistance track.” According to Gregory she felt it was an oppressive gesture because of her African-American race. However, when she signed the release she waived her right to a discrimination claim based on her national origin. The release was deemed valid even though she stated that she only had 15 minutes to review and sign it.

The court concluded that the union representative negotiated the terms of the resignation for Rhauni Gregory. Also according to the agreement she and her family were entitled to continue medical benefits until the end of the year. It also included a that she would receive a positive letter of reference for her to use to obtain future employment. These two items would not have been available if the separation agreement had not been signed.

Bowers v. New Jersey Judiciary – New Jersey Employment Law Cases

According to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination reasonable accommodations must be made by employers for their employees with disabilities. Tayeb Hyderally is an employment lawyer in the New York and New Jersey areas. He is a legal expert who specializes in employment law cases such as these and successfully litigates for the rights of his clients.

In Bowers v. New Jersey Judiciary Thomas Bowers, an Information Technology Analyst claimed that he had suffered from mental and physical distress because of workplace harassment, discrimination and retaliation.  His case claimed that the Judiciary failed to provide him reasonable accommodation according to his level of disability.

Mr. Bowers was diagnosed with Anxiety disorder and the doctor suggested that he take a medical leave from June 6 to July 1, 2007. However, due to the lack of acceptable progress his medical leave was extended several times until he was out until October 1, 2007. According to the Family Medical Leave Act, employees have at least 12 weeks of protected leave. The Judiciary told Mr. Bowers that he was exceeding this protected time and that he would be allowed to use his available vacation time. This would cover his time off until September 6. He was warned that if he was not back at work by September 10 he would be considered to be on “an unauthorized leave of absence” and would be disciplined.

After consulting his doctor and legal counsel Mr. Bower’s lawyer explained to the Judiciary that he would be back at work by October 1. The Judiciary’s answer was that he must return to work by September 10 or disciplinary actions would ensue. Their claim was that the Judiciary had “experienced significant operational hardship” due to his absence. Therefore, they were unwilling to accommodate for his disability. Effective on September 10, 2007 Mr. Bowers was terminated from his position as he had failed to return to work.

The Appellate Division decided that it should be heard by a jury to determine if the Judiciary had failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Mr. Bower’s disability which was in violation of LAD. The courts noted that Mr. Bower’s vacated position was not posted until October 2008 and that the position was not filled until January 20, 2009. Had the Judiciary simply placed Mr. Bowers on unpaid medical leave through September and then allowed him to return to the workplace on October 1 the position would have been unclaimed for only 3 weeks. However, instead, it was empty until January 20. The Judiciary claimed that they had undue financial hardship that prohibited them from filling the position any sooner. If they had overcome this budgetary constraint earlier the jury might have ruled in their favor. As it was, the jury found that the evidence supported Mr. Bower’s claim that the Judiciary failed to accommodate his disability and was in direct violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Wallace v. Mercer County Youth Detention Center – New Jersey Employment Law Cases

Tina Stewart and Moneck Wallace were both female employees at the Mercer County Youth Detention Center. They alleged that they had been sexually harassed by a male coworker, Jerel Livingston. Both ladies made complaints to the employer that detailed their situations. However, once the employer had conducted an investigation, they concluded that there was not enough evidence to sustain their claims. Therefore, the women began the process of filing a sexual harassment lawsuit. According to employment laws in New Jersey, an employer can be held liable for employees who sexually harass coworkers if there are no harassment policies in place.

The case was dismissed by the trial judge for lack of evidence. The court found that even though they did have evidence to support their allegations of the sexual harassment, it was concluded that the employer could not be held liable because Mr. Livingston was not in a supervisory position. And the ladies also lacked evidence that the employer failed to respond to the allegations, or that he even knew of said incidents. However, New Jersey’s Appellate Division disagreed with the decision by the court to dismiss the case. They upheld that an employer could be liable for sexual harassment that was committed by either a supervisor or a coworker if there were no anti-harassment policies in place. Since there was not an active anti-harassment policy, Mercer County had enough evidence to take the case before a jury trial.

Actually, the evidence was present in that Mercer County failed to inform employees about the sexual harassment policy as well as not providing worker training in such matters. They also failed to enforce the policy and did not conduct a thorough enough investigation into the incident. The company also had no criteria to determine if a sexual harassment claim could be substantiated or not. And they did not have any effective ways of measuring if their policies were adequate or effective.

The Appellate Division put the case back into the hands of the trial courts to let a jury decide between the two parties. They will determine according to employment laws in New Jersey whether or not the employer was liable for their employee’s conduct in this matter. Previous cases have set the precedent which makes the employer responsible for having the proper policies in place as well as a way to measure their effectiveness. It is their responsibility to protect their employees and ensure that they are allowed to work in a hostile-free environment. According to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) employers are liable for acts of sexual harassment that are committed by a coworker when the employer does not have an anti-harassment policy in place.