The New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that in an age discrimination case, the fourth element of the plaintiff’s prima facie burden—that plaintiff was replaced (or the employer sought a replacement) by someone sufficiently younger to permit an inference of age discrimination—is a “flexible” prong that can be met under various alternate circumstances. Cohen v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, A-1300-12T1 (Dec. 30, 2013). Citing a Second Circuit Court of Appeals case brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Appellate Division listed the following factual scenarios that could satisfy the flexible fourth prong of a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination age case: (1) actions or remarks made by a decision maker reflecting a discriminatory animus; (2) preferential treatment given to employees outside the protected class; (3) in a corporate downsizing, a systematic transfer of a discharged employee’s duties to other employees; (4) a pattern of recommending plaintiff for positions for which he or she is not qualified and failure to surface plaintiff’s name for positions for which he or she is well qualified; (5) continued seeking of applicants to fill the position after plaintiff’s termination; or (6) the timing and sequence of events leading to a termination.
NLRB Establishes new Right for Employees To Use Company Email During Non-Working Time: Is The Obama Board Out Of Control?
On December 11, 2014, a sharply divided National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in a 3-to-2 decision that employees with access to employer email systems “in the course of their work” must, in most cases, be allowed to use that email to communicate with one another about any and all…..
On April 15, 2011, a public hearing was held in Trenton on a proposed amendment to N.J.A.C. 12:56-6.1 that concerns exemptions from overtime for executive, administrative, professional, and outside sales employees. The New Jersey Department of Labor is proposing to repeal its existing rules regarding these exemptions (which are, in certain respects, more onerous for employers than the FLSA exemptions) and replace them with the federal overtime exemption regulations.
A federal district court judge declined to enforce a no-hire agreement that would prevent the plaintiff’s former chief technology officer (CTO) from being hired by the defendant, its direct competitor. Applying New York’s well-established reasonableness analysis to the no-hire restrictive covenant, the court found that the covenant was not necessary to protect the plaintiff’s legitimate business interests.