Age Discrimination :: 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

Posted by The Rotolo Law Firm | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination

Even though New Jersey is an “at will” employment state, the New Jersey State Supreme Court this past summer ruled that failure to renew a contract because of age is against the New Jersey’s Anti-Discrimination Law. (1)

The case involved Rose Nini, a former dean at Mercer County Community College, who claimed the College refused to renew her contract because of her age – 73. Nini had worked at the College for a total of 26 years under several contracts. In the spring of 2005, the College announced it would not renew her contract. (2) According to Nini, this was solely due to her age. The school, however, contended that since Nini was an “at will” employee, they acted within their rights in choosing not to renew her contract. (1)

“At will” employment basically means that employees have the right to resign from a job for any reason and employers have the right to terminate employees for any reason provided, of course, those reasons do not violate other rights protected under state or federal law. (3)

Nini filed suit against the College in September 2005. In the suit she alleged that the College’s former president let her know he did not believe she should be working at her age. The trial court decided that, because Nini’s employment was contractual, the New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination did not protect her. According to the court, Nini was not terminated; she just wasn’t rehired. (1)

The case was later appealed and the trial court’s decision was overturned. The matter was then brought to the State Supreme Court. In the meantime, Nini and the College reached an agreement and asked that the case be dropped. The Court, however, recognizing the extent of public interest in the case, ruled on the matter anyway. (4)

In its ruling, the State Supreme Court found that while employers do have the right to refuse to hire people over 70 years of age that exception applies only to new hires. The court’s ruling made it clear that refusing to renew contracts because of an employee’s age is discriminatory. (1)

(1) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/nj_supreme_court_rules_refusal.html

(2) http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/nj-supreme-court-rules-against-mercer-county-community-college-on-age-discrimination-case

(3) http://employeeissues.com/wrongful_termination.htm

(4) http://chronical.com/blogPost/NJ-Supreme-Court-Sides-With/24461/

Posted by The Rotolo Law Firm | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination , Lawsuits