Our Cases

In this case, which involved a diabetic teacher who suffered serious injuries after her school failed to accommodate her need for an earlier lunch schedule, the NJ Supreme Court ruled that an employee does not need to prove an "adverse employment action," such as being fired or demoted, to bring a successful failure-to-accommodate claim under the state's Law Against Discrimination. Furthermore, the ruling established that such a discrimination claim is not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. This landmark decision clarifies that an employer's inaction, silence, or inadequate response to a reasonable accommodation request is an omission that itself can give rise to a cause of action.

In this case brought in the U.S. District Court of New York, a disabled employee of the Parks Department brought an action against the county, employee's direct supervisor, and two co-workers, alleging that employee was discriminated against on basis of his disability, in violation of federal and state law, when co-workers subjected him to harassment during course of his employment. In denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, the court held that plaintiff stated a “class-of-one” equal protection claim against employee's co-workers; the plaintiff stated a municipal liability claim under § 1983 against county; and plaintiff established disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The case was eventually settled.

In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed whether a party forfeits its right to compel arbitration by actively participating in a lawsuit. The case involved a nurse who sued the medical center and her employer for discrimination and retaliation; her employer, despite an arbitration clause in her contract, engaged in the litigation process for over 20 months. The Court ultimately ruled that the employer had waived its right to arbitration by its prolonged and active participation in the court proceedings. This decision established that a party's conduct in litigation can implicitly relinquish a known right to arbitrate, particularly when the delay is part of a litigation strategy that prejudices the other party.

In this case our firm represented the Plaintiff who alleged she was subjected to constant sexual harassment and even assault by her supervisor. After the case was tried before a jury, q verdict was entered in favor of our client in the amount of $302,500 plus counsel fees and costs.

In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that co-employees had standing to bring a claim under the NJ Law Against Discrimination LAD claim based on their status of friends or relatives of the co-employee, in retaliation for co-employee's assertion of discrimination claims against employer.

Ruling in favor of our clients, the court held that the plaintiff police officers were employees of the defendant City of New Brunswick during extra-duty assignments, within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In a case where our client filed a complaint against her former employer, alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge in violation of Law Against Discrimination, the appellate court in another comprehensive opinion held: 1) that when determining whether the offending employee was a supervisor for purposes of establishing vicarious liability of employer, court was required to look at what power the worker was reasonably perceived to have over the victim; 2) constructive discharge resulting from sexually harassing conduct of supervisor constitutes a “tangible employment action” under the law; and 3) issues of material fact existed as to whether the former employer delegated authority to the project leader, whether the project leader exercised supervisory authority, whether the project leader created hostile work environment, and whether the project leader was aided by agency relationship precluded summary judgment.

Here, a discharged electric and gas company employee filed a state court action alleging his employment was terminated in violation of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), New Jersey public policy, and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). In other precedent setting decision, the court held that the employer's failure to advise the employee of his right to twelve weeks of FMLA leave after he properly gave notice of his serious health condition would constitute actionable interference with FMLA leave, and the company was not entitled to have the case dismissed for the failure of the employee to show prejudice.

In this case a former sheriff's investigator brought an action against the county, sheriff's department, and former sheriff, alleging claims of age discrimination in violation of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD). After a jury verdict in our client’s favor in the amount $617,922.00, the Appellate Division ruled in favor of our client, affirming the verdict of the jury.