New Jersey Injury Lawyers Blog

A class-action suit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics charging the Madison, NJ-based firm with age discrimination practices.

According to the lawsuit, the company restructured its sales force in 2008 and since that time allegedly held its older employees to higher performance standards than its newer, younger workers. The suit alleges that the company held its older sales employees to unachievable quotas and that these quotas were not revised when economic conditions faltered. Instead, according to the suit, regular employee evaluations were conducted. Under-performing employees were put on three-month probation. Employees who could not meet quotas were given 30-days’ notice and, if performance did not improve within that time, the employees were fired. (1)

While only one plaintiff is involved with the suit at this time, at least 40 others have expressed similar experiences. It is up to the court to decide if the suit could be expanded to include more litigants. (1)

In a separate case, the NJ Supreme Court ruled that three female professors may continue with a lawsuit against Seton Hall University that alleges the University paid higher salaries to younger instructors and male professors.

The suit began in 2007 and resulted from a University report on the earnings of full-time faculty members. The report described the earnings according to school, rank, gender, and salary. The three professors filing the suit found that they were paid anywhere from $15,000 to $50,000 less than their male or younger counterparts.

The Supreme Court ruled that each payment of discriminatory wages constitutes a “renewed separable and actionable wrong.” However, since there is a two-year statute of limitations on the State’s anti-discrimination law, only some of the professors’ paychecks can be counted. The professors have been employed with the University for almost two decades. (2)

It has yet to be determined whether Seton Hall will settle the case or proceed to trial. (2)

Under NJ State law, it is illegal for an employer to harass or treat differently any employee because of age or gender when applying for a job, during the term of employment, and in cases of terminations or retirement, unless age or gender is essential to performing the job. (3)

(1) http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/11/lawsuit_against_quest_diagnost.html

(2) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/nj_supreme_court_allows_wage_d.html

(3) http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/downloads/fact_age.pdf

State lawmakers have joined the growing ranks of people, including civil liberties supporters, pilots, flight attendants, and passengers opposed to the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) new screening procedures, namely the full-body scanners and their alternative – the more aggressive pat-downs.

State Senator Michael J. Doherty (R-23rd District) is one of several local lawmakers who have raised the question of whether these new procedures amount to a violation of Constitutional rights and New Jersey privacy laws. These lawmakers have introduced resolutions asking Congress to look into these concerns. (1)

Full-body scanners have recently been installed and implemented in 70 airports across the country, including Newark Liberty International. (2) The new scanners can see through clothing and produce images that show the contours of passengers’ bodies. The controversy surrounding the scanners deals mostly with the revealing images they produce. Airline passengers who opt not to go through the scanners are subject to more aggressive pat-downs, in which they could be touched in private or sensitive areas. (3)

Several recent news reports have told stories of how passengers who wear prosthesis or ostomies have felt humiliated as a result of the new enhanced searches and raised questions as to whether TSA officials have received sufficient training in dealing with these special situations. (4)

The Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, of which Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is a member, held a hearing last week to question John Pistole, TSA Administrator, about the effectiveness and invasiveness of the new screening procedures. Pistole has defended the new procedures as a necessary response to threats to air travel security and stated that the new policy would not change. However, the TSA has agreed to use a more modified pat-down procedure on children 12 and younger. (3) The TSA also has announced that it is developing new technology that would produce scanners that could still uncover hidden objects while displaying less revealing, stick figure-like images. (2)

Sen. Lautenberg has said he believed the new scanners would lessen the need for physical pat-downs, but has called on the TSA to find a better way to discover risks not detected by these scanners - a way that does not involve the aggressive pat-downs used today. (2)

(1) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/nj_lawmakers_announce_bipartis.html

(2) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/tsa_official_concedes_that_con.html

(3) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/us_senators_expected_to_questi.html

(4) http://www.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/?GTi=43001

Essex County will pay $25,000 to a former corrections officer as part of a settlement of a lawsuit claiming the County’s Department of Corrections violated that officer’s religious rights by not allowing her to wear a khimar, a religiously-mandated headscarf. (1)

The U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed suit against Essex County in June 2009 alleging that the County’s Department of Corrections violated the religious rights of Yvette Beshier, the Muslim corrections officer, under Title VII when it denied Beshier reasonable religious accommodations that would allow her to wear her headscarf while on duty. Instead, the Department first suspended and then terminated Beshier for violating its uniform policy. (2)

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects individuals from discrimination due to national origin, sex, race and religious affiliation. (3)

Under the settlement, which was reached this week, Essex County also has agreed to adopt a new religious accommodation policy and offer religious accommodation and discrimination training to its employees. (3)

Initially, this case was investigated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Newark area office before going to trial. (1)

(1) http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AB47H20101112

(2) http://www.justice.gov/crt/religiousdiscrimination/FF_employment.html

(3) http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/JUSTICE_DEPARTMENT_SETTLES_RELIGIOUS_DISCRIMINATION_LAWSUIT_AGAINST_ESSEX_COUNTY_NJ/36154

In a rare move last week, Morris County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Brennan increased an award granted by a civil jury to a 61-year-old Sparta man who lost his right leg as a result of a 2005 snowmobile accident. (1)

The jury in the product liability case against Yamaha Motor Co., manufacturer of the snowmobile, found in favor of Dennis Mohr and awarded him $1,107,000 for pain and suffering, medical expenses and lost income. Of that amount, $100,000 was specifically awarded for pain and suffering. Mohr’s lawyer argued that amount was inconsistent with the severity of Mohr’s injury and filed a motion for an additur. Judge Brennan agreed, adding $900,000 to the settlement, bringing the total to slightly more than $2 million. (2)

Mohr’s injury occurred in February 2005. When the 1995 Yamaha VX600V-R snowmobile Mohr borrowed from his friend wasn't running smoothly, Mohr and two friends tried to fix the snowmobile. During the process the metal track on which the snowmobile rides broke and the embedded studs tore into Mohr’s leg, severing it about two-thirds of the way. Doctors’ attempts to save the leg failed and it was amputated right above the knee just days after the accident.

Although the jury did not find the snowmobile to be faulty, it did determine that Yamaha failed to provide sufficient warning labels concerning the hazards and safety of the vehicle. Yahama countered that such warnings were included in the owner’s manual. (3)

At the trial Mohr, owner of a heavy equipment company, testified that he continues to feel phantom pain in his right leg for which he regularly takes morphine. He also testified that, due to his injury, he can no longer operate heavy equipment. (2)

Usually judges do not like to go against jury decisions by granting additurs or reducing awards and will only do so in cases where they believe a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Yamaha does have the option to appeal the verdict. (2)

(1) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/nj_judge_awards_sparta_man_who.html

(2) http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010310270007

(3) http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010101027015