Tag: Employment

Consider this scenario: Your company has struggled with a key employee, and it is determined that the employment should be terminated. Following the advice of counsel, the parties entered into a separation agreement, severance is paid, and the employee signs a release of all claims related to employment with your company. At this point, the parties can now move on without the threat of litigation, right? Not necessarily!

In an interesting new development, the Appellate Division of New Jersey, in the matter of Cerdeira v. Martindale Hubbell, Appellate Division A-5855-06T1 (September 18, 2008) has expanded liability for discrimination in certain situations.

Last Summer, the New Jersey Legislature added  “affectional orientation” to the list of protected classes of people under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). Now New Jersey employers are faced with another tricky issue on a very practical level which may have not been considered by the Legislature.  How does an employer respond to a trans gender employee who wishes to use the bathroom of the opposite “biological” sex? For example, a biologically male employee who dresses as a woman wants to use the “ladies room.”  Should the employer allow this?  What about the other employees?  The courts in New Jersey have done almost nothing to answer these questions to date.  In a recent unpublished decision Opilla v. Parker, the Appellate Division sidestepped these issues in a case which would have otherwise provided employers with real guidance on this issue.  In Opilla, a trans gendered biologically male employee entered the women’s locker room of the corporate gym and allegedly stared at a semi-dressed female co-worker. The coworker was uncomfortable enough to complain about the incident to her employer and eventually filed a lawsuit. 

The court determined that one single incident of alleged discrimination would not rise to the severe and pervasive level required under NJLAD, thereby neatly avoiding the rather obvious issues presented in the case.  Other jurisdictions have taken on this issue and provide some guidance. For example, a Federal Court in Minnesota dealt with the trans gender bathroom question and made the following, seemingly reasonable determination:  If an employee presents “as a male,” the employee should use the mens bathroom – likewise if the employee presents “as a female,” the employee should use the womens bathroom.  While this is obviously not a perfect solution, and does not really address the issues other employees may have with sharing lavatories or locker room with transgendered coworkers, it is probable that this “middle of the road” solution will eventually become the law in New Jersey.  Only time will tell if New Jersey employers will take on the additional economic impact of creating a third “gender neutral” bathroom in their place of business.  

Earlier today (May 21, 2008) President Bush signed into law a bill that prohibits employers from using genetic information about prospective employees to make decisions on hiring. The Bill had received almost unanimous support in both the House and Senate.

As the economy worsens, employers are facing an increasing number of lawsuits over employee references. Whether the employer gives a good reference or a bad reference, there is an increase in lawsuits being filed against the employer.