Tag: New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS $1.4 MILLION EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AWARD IN DISCRIMINATION CASE

Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a $1.4 million jury award in emotional distress damages in a discrimination/retaliation case brought by two brothers, Ramon and Jeffrey Cuevas.  The Cuevas brothers brought suit against their former employer, Wentworth Group, alleging that they were subject to harassment due to their Hispanic heritage and then fired for complaining about it in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).

Plaintiffs contend that company executives would often make disparaging remarks about them because of their race.  For example, at a company meeting at a restaurant, Ramon claims that his supervisor stated that if he did not pay for the bill, he could join his father in the back kitchen to wash dishes.  At another meeting at a restaurant, the same supervisor allegedly asked if they can get salsa music or a Mariachi band to play to “better fit” Ramon’s taste and stated that Ramon probably knew of a Mariachi band that could perform.

Jeffrey similarly claimed that company executives joked about having to “order twice as much Mexican food and hire a salsa band” to satisfy plaintiffs.   A human resources director also referred to the brothers as “Latin lovers,” which they found to be particularly demeaning since the comment came from a human resources executive.

The Cuevas’ alleged that the abuse was humiliating, continuous and wore them down.  Jeffrey claimed that he told in-house counsel that he wanted the harassment to stop, but the company lawyer allegedly dismissed him and simply told him to “calm down.”  Four days later, he was terminated.  Ramon said he contacted the president and CEO to complain about his brother’s treatment, and within a month, he was terminated too.

At trial, the brothers testified that they felt helpless and depressed, but did not seek medical treatment.  The jury returned a verdict for $1.4 million in emotional distress damages in addition to back pay, front pay and punitive damages.  Wentworth filed a post-trial motion and asked that the court to reduce the amount of emotional distress damages because they felt it was “unconscionably high.”  The trial court denied the motion, and Wentworth appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, and Wentworth appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Wentworth argued that only nominal damages should be awarded in discrimination cases under the NJLAD when there is no independent proof or showing of physical and psychological symptoms.  The Supreme Court rejected Wentworth’s argument and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

The Court reasoned, in part, that the “Legislature intended victims of discrimination to obtain compensation for mental anguish, embarrassment and the like, without limitation to severe emotional or physical ailments.”   It further stated that the court’s conscience was not shocked in this case and ruled that the brothers’ testimony on the matter was sufficient even though they did not present expert testimony to justify their claims of emotional distress.

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT RULES EMPLOYERS CANNOT CONTRACTUALLY SHORTEN TIME LIMITS ON WORKER EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUITS

On June 15, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court, the highest court in this state, issued its decision in Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. in which it addressed whether the two-year statute of limitations under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) could be shortened by a private agreement.

In that case, Plaintiff Sergio Rodriguez applied for a job at the furniture store.  The last page of the employment application, which he signed and submitted, contained a section that read, in bold capital letters, “I agree that that any claim or lawsuit relating to my service with Raymour & Flanigan must be filed no more than six months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit.  I waive any statute of limitations to the contrary.”   A few years later, Rodriguez suffered a work-place injury, and two days after he returned to full-duty work, he was fired.  He filed a lawsuit seven months after he was terminated alleging employment discrimination based on actual or perceived disability in violation of the LAD.

Defendant argued that because Rodriguez filed the lawsuit after the six-month statute of limitations period, his lawsuit should be dismissed.  The trial court ruled in favor of Defendant, holding that the waiver provision was clear and unambiguous and that the shortening of the statute of limitations period was not unreasonable or against public policy, as Rodriguez contended.  Rodriguez appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.  Although the court found that the employment application was a contract of adhesion, Plaintiff had ample time to review it.   Rodriguez appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

On appeal, Plaintiff argued, in part, that contractual shortening of the statute of limitations would frustrate the remedial purpose of the LAD.  The court reversed the lower court’s decision and decided in favor of Plaintiff.  The court recognized that although parties have the freedom to contract, there is strong public interest that the LAD serves to protect in trying to elimination discrimination.  The court further stated that the contractual shortening of a limitations period effectively eliminates claims because it would not allow enough time for an aggrieved person to bring forth their claims and the two-year statute of limitations was purposefully designed to create uniformity and certainty.   As such, the court ruled that the two-year time frame to bring a claim under the LAD cannot be altered through a private agreement.

The full decision can be found here.

BORGATA’S DRESS AND GROOMING RULES FOR SERVERS RULED NON-DISCRIMINATORY

The New Jersey Court of Appeals ruled last week that the dress and grooming policies for cocktail servers, known as the “Borgata Babes,” at the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa did not constitute sex discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 

The lawsuit was brought by twenty-two women who alleged that the casino viewed them as sex objects and had policies which prohibited them from gaining more than seven percent of their body weight at the time of hiring.  The lower court held that the hiring process made clear that the positions were meant to be part-entertainer and part-cocktail waitress and the waitresses voluntarily agreed to the weight policy by signing agreements, which the judged ruled were reasonable and lawful.  The waitresses appealed.

  Last week, the New Jersey Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Borgata’s personal appearance policy was lawful and non-discriminatory; however, the Court ruled that “…the enforcement of the weight policy was applied in a discriminatory harassing manner targeting women returning from maternity and medical leave” and therefore remanded the case back to the lower court on that issue.

The full decision can be read here.