Our Attorneys Have Helped Improve the Law By Establishing Important New Legal Precedents
The Attorneys of Resnick Nirenberg & Cash have been involved in numerous important cases which helped improve the law for employees. Below is a summary of some of our most important precedential cases.
Padilla v. Berkeley Educational Services of New Jersey, Inc., 383 N.J. Super. 177 (App. Div. 2005)
Prior to the appeal, a jury had determined that Berkeley Educational Services of New Jersey had discriminated against its employee, Cely Padilla, because she was pregnant. However, due to an error in the jury verdict sheet, the trial judge did not permit allow the jury to award any damages to Ms. Padilla.
On appeal, Jonathan I. Nirenberg and Jamie I. Cash convinced New Jersey's Appellate Division to send the case back to the trial court so a jury could award Ms. Padilla damages for her lost wages and benefits, her emotional distress, and her attorney's fees. Importantly, the appellate court recognized that an employee does not need to have a doctor or expert witness testify to recover emotional distress under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Myers v. AT&T, 380 N.J. Super. 443 (App. Div. 2005)
In this disability discrimination case, the trial court found that the plaintiff, Lois Myers, did not have enough evidence of discrimination for a jury to even consider whether AT&T fired her because she was a survivor of ovarian cancer. The trial court dismissed Ms. Myers' case even though her Myers' immediate supervisor admitted she lowered Ms. Myers' performance rating because she perceived that, as a cancer survivor, Ms. Myers was not working as hard as her non-disabled coworker. It was also undisputed that AT&T selected Ms. Myers to be included in a mass layoff because of her lowered performance rating.
On appeal, Jonathan I. Nirenberg helped convince the Appellate Division that Ms. Myers was entitled to her day in court. In fact, the appeals court found that the admission by Ms. Myers' supervisor was "direct evidence" of discrimination, and therefore instead of Ms. Myers having to prove that AT&T fired her because of her disability, the company would had the burden to prove that it would have fired Ms. Myers even if she never had cancer.
The Myers decision is an extremely important since it makes it significantly easier for an employee to place the burden of proof on the employer in discrimination cases.
Zive v. Stanley Roberts, Inc., 182 N.J. 436 (2005)
In yet another important victory for employees, Jonathan I. Nirenberg helped to convince the New Jersey Supreme Court to substantially lower the threshold for a victim of discrimination to have his case decided by a jury.
After a jury found that Stanley Roberts, Inc. fired Stewart Zive because he was disabled after he suffered a stroke, the company unsuccessfully attempted to convince the Appellate Division to reverse the decision. The company again appealed, this time to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court not only denied the appeal, but looked carefully at the elements an employee has to prove before a case can go to a jury. Ultimately, the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized that the plaintiff has a minimal burden before he is entitled to a trial, and essentially ruled that a jury should be able to decide whether discrimination made a difference in the employer's decision so long as the facts are not inconsistent with the possibility of discrimination.
Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 185 (3d. Cir. 2004)
Richard Conoshenti filed a claim against his employer, PSE&G, contending that he was unlawfully terminated from his job in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Mr. Conoshenti contended that although PSE&G was aware of his illness and that he needed to take time off because of it, the company failed to appropriately give him notice of his rights under the FMLA.
Mr. Resnick argued the case on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia. The Court determined that PSE&G's failure to advise Mr. Conoshenti of his right to twelve weeks of FMLA leave was an "actionable interference" with his ability to meaningfully exercise his right to take a leave under the FMLA.
Brennan v. Norton, 350 F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 2003)
In this federal civil rights case, Firefighter William J. Brennan was awarded a substantial jury verdict against the Township of Teaneck and numerous of its employees for violating his First Amendment rights.
On appeal, the defendants sought to reverse the jury's verdict. Mr. Nirenberg and Ms. Cash, who represented Mr. Brennan, attempted to convince the court to send the case back to the district court to determine whether the defendants had retaliated against Mr. Brennan's rights in violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act ("CEPA"), even though he had not sent a "notice of claim" to Teaneck. Filing a notice of claim is a legal prerequisite to bringing a personal injury lawsuit against the state or local government.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the District Court, concluding that CEPA is a civil rights statute, not a personal injury law. As a result, the Court held that plaintiffs do not need to send a "notice of claim" before bringing a whistleblower claim against the government under CEPA.
Entrot v. BASF Corp., 359 N.J. Super. 162 (App. Div. 2003)
Cindylu Entrot sued her former employer, BASF, for sexual harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Mrs. Entrot alleged that BASF forced her to leave her job due to the mental distress caused by the hostile work environment and sexually charged atmosphere created by one of her superiors.
In a first case of its kind in New Jersey, New Jersey's Appellate Division held that a "constructive discharge" (meaning a forced resignation) caused by the sexually harassing conduct of a supervisor is a "tangible employment action," and that as a result BASF was not able to argue that it had an effective anti-harassment policy as a defense to Mrs. Entrot's claims against it. This is significant because it eliminates a possible defense that a company might otherwise be able to raise in a constructive discharge case.
Cahill v. City of New Brunswick, 99 F.Supp.2d. 464 (D.N.J. 2000)
In this suit, Gerald Resnick represented numerous police officers working for the City of New Brunswick. The police officers sued the City for violating their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an important federal law governing employees' wage and hour rights. More specifically, the police officers claimed that the City violated the FLSA by delaying paying them because they were working "extra-duty" jobs. An extra-duty job is when a city supplies police officers for an outside vendor.
The City sought to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming the officers should not be considered "employees" within the meaning of the FLSA when they worked on extra-duty assignments. However, Mr. Resnick was able to convince United States District Court Judge William H. Walls to rule in favor of the officers, and to find that the officers should be considered "employees" for the purposes of the FLSA.
Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, 140 N.J. 623 (1995)
This important retaliation case established that it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee's friends or family if they engage in activity that is legally protected under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
Prior to this case, Susan Chapman, a former employee of Suburban Cablevision, sued the company for disability discrimination in federal court. In this case, Ms. Chapman and four coworkers who were each either related to Ms. Chapman or one of her personal friends, sued Cablevision because the company retaliated against them due to their relationship to Ms. Chapman.
On appeal, Gerald Jay Resnick successfully convinced the New Jersey Supreme Court that an individual has a legal claim if he or she is the victim of discrimination because a friend, family member, or coworkers pursues his or her rights under the LAD. This is an important expansion of New Jersey law, since it makes it illegal for a company to harm your friends and family if you pursue a discrimination claim.
