When you’ve suffered from employment discrimination, you may find yourself facing many hurdles on the way to getting your day in court and compensation for the harm you’ve suffered. For one New Jersey truck driver, his hurdles included convincing the courts that his Law Against Discrimination case was not preempted by a federal law related to collective bargaining agreements. In this driver’s case, his state law claims existed outside the parameters of the CBA between his union and his employer, which meant that there was no preemption, and he could go forward with his case.
Sometimes, when you’ve been a victim of workplace discrimination, your civil damages may not be the only monetary award to which the law entitles you. Depending on the facts of your case, you may also have obtained an award of unemployment benefits, disability benefits, or another award. In an important ruling by the Appellate Division from earlier this year, the court clarified that a workplace discrimination victim’s civil damages award should not have been reduced based solely upon his receipt of unemployment benefits.
When you’ve been a victim of discrimination at work, that misconduct may give you an opportunity to hold your employer liable for that action. In some cases, there could be multiple different legal avenues for holding an employer liable for discrimination. Success can sometimes depend on how you use all of the tools at your disposal. In the case of one New Jersey State Police employee who claimed that he was a victim of racial, disability, and whistleblower discrimination, even though he saw two of his claims thrown out by the courts, he still secured a half-million dollar judgment on the basis of a third cause of action.
A New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in a police dispatcher’s disability discrimination case has provided valuable guidance and help for any employee pursuing a disability discrimination case under the Law Against Discrimination. The ruling allows employees with disabilities to use the opinion testimony of their treating doctors and potentially avoid the possibly expensive prospect of hiring an expert witness.
For many workers, times are hard and jobs can be scarce. Sometimes, this may place employers in an advantageous position relative to their job applicants. While the law often gives the two sides a lot of freedom in terms of contracting for employment, there are also some distinct limits. A New Jersey Supreme Court case from a few months ago illustrated one such boundary. The high court ruled that an employer and an employee cannot, through a contractual agreement, shorten the length of time an employee has to pursue his rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.