Full Service Law Firm in Mt. Laurel Township, NJ | Capehart Scatchard

labor and employment

By: Gabi Aste-Molina, Law Clerk

Editor: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

On July 3, 2023, Governor Murphy signed legislation that expands sick leave for school district employees. Bill A5060/S3440 amends the law by allowing school district employees to use their sick leave for preventative care, care of a family member, recovery from domestic or sexual violence or that of a family member, bereavement of a family member, to attend their child’s school-related conference or meeting, and when their child’s school or place of care is closed. Previously, school district employees could only use sick leave for a personal disability due to an illness or injury or when an employee or someone in their immediate household was exposed to a contagious disease or quarantined for it. This bill does not supersede any collective bargaining rights for school district employees and does not “reduce, diminish, or adversely affect” those rights either.

The new legislation also states that a board of education may require an employee to file a physician’s certificate with its secretary only for sick leave due to a personal injury or illness (and not the new eligible uses). Finally, the bill explains when a board of education may request advance notice or reasonable documentation for sick leave use.

Editor: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

Below is an article written by my colleague, Ralph R. Smith, Esq., Co-Chair of our firm’s Labor & Employment Group. If you wish to view additional articles and/or be kept up-to-date with labor & employment issues, visit our HR Resource blog by clicking here.

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, a new federal law that expands the rights of pregnant (and postpartum) workers went into effect nationally. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) provides several new rights and protections for pregnant workers and imposes new obligations on employers. It applies to all employers who employ 15 or more employees.   

Here are some critical provisions of the Act that all employers must know who are covered by this new law:

1.         Reasonable Accommodations: The PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees. This includes things such as modifications to tasks, work schedules, or other workplace adjustments that allow pregnant individuals to continue working safely and without jeopardizing their health or the health of their unborn child. Examples of reasonable accommodations may include providing extra breaks, allowing for more frequent restroom visits, or allowing a temporary transfer to less physically demanding tasks.

2.         Protection against Discrimination: The PWFA likewise prohibits employers from discriminating against pregnant workers. It ensures that pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions are protected characteristics under employment anti-discrimination laws. Employers cannot refuse to hire, fire, demote, or take adverse actions against an employee due to pregnancy or its related medical conditions.

3.         Notice and Training Requirements: The PWFA also requires employers to notify their employees of their rights under the Act. Employers must inform workers about their right to reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions and the prohibition of discrimination based on pregnancy. Additionally, the Act encourages employers to provide training to managers and supervisors to ensure compliance with the law and promote a supportive and inclusive work environment.

As most employers are aware, there were already existing laws that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces that make it illegal to fire or otherwise discriminate against workers on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and/or related medical conditions already. For example, the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”) has long banned such practices; this new law reiterates such prohibitions and expands upon an employer’s duties by actively imposing an accommodation requirement that was not expressly required by the PDA.  

The PWFA does not replace federal, state, or local laws that offer more protection to workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. More than 30 states and cities have laws that require the provision of accommodations for pregnant workers. New Jersey happens to be one such state, which has had a reasonable accommodation mandate as part of its Law Against Discrimination since that law was amended to add the requirements in 2014, meaning that these new requirements of the federal PWFA will just impose obligations that have already existed in New Jersey since the Law Against Discrimination was modified. Moreover, like the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, employers will be able to opt out of providing accommodations to pregnant workers under the PWFA if they can show that doing so presents an “undue hardship” on their business operations.

If you have not brought your policies in line with the modified Law Against Discrimination, the new federal law gives you a second chance to update your anti-pregnancy discrimination policies to meet these new federal requirements that largely mirror those already existing under New Jersey law.    

By: Eric M. Richwine, Law Clerk
Editor: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

On June 12, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Parsells v. Board of Education of the Borough of Somerville held that a New Jersey teacher did not knowingly waive her tenured right to a full-time teaching position under the Tenure Act when she voluntarily moved to a part-time position, unaware that she had no right to return to her full-time role.   

Catherine Parsells, a full-time, tenured teacher employed by the Somerville Board of Education (“Board”), requested a transfer from full-time teaching to an available in-district, part-time teaching position with benefits. The Board approved the request but did not advise her in advance that she would not have a right to return to a full-time position if she voluntarily took the part-time position. When Parsells eventually wished to return to full-time work, she was informed that she had no automatic entitlement to a full-time teaching position and that if one were to become available, she would be required to apply for it. Parsells eventually applied for a full-time teaching position but was not selected.

Parsells appealed to the New Jersey Commissioner of Education (“Commissioner”), arguing that she did not waive her tenure rights by accepting a part-time position and that the Board violated her rights by hiring out-of-district teachers with no tenure for full-time positions instead of herself. The Administrative Law Judge rendered an initial decision in favor of the Board; however, the Commissioner ultimately reversed, reasoning that Parsells did not waive any rights to her full-time position and that the Board had a duty to inform Parsells of the consequences of switching to part-time employment, i.e., the loss of her right to return to full-time job status before she voluntarily switched to part-time employment.  

The Board appealed to the New Jersey Appellate Division, arguing that the Commissioner erred in finding that it was required to give notice of the impact of Parsells’ switch to a part-time role and that there was no valid waiver by Parsells. The Appellate Division extended the holding of Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association v. Board of Education of Bridgewater-Raritan School District, 221 N.J. 349 (2015) to impose a duty to notify full-time teachers who consider voluntarily transferring to part-time teaching that they may not have the right to return to their full-time position and therefore affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

The Board challenged the Appellate Division’s decision, but the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the holding. The Court reasoned that Parsells did not knowingly waive her tenured right to returning to a full-time teaching position as required under the Tenure Act. However, the Court rejected the Appellate Division’s extension of Bridgewater-Raritan to impose a duty of notification on school boards in this instance. Instead, the Court held that Parsells did not abandon her right to her full-time position knowingly and unequivocally as required by the Court’s decision interpreting the Tenure Act in Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 177 (2003). As such, the Court affirmed as modified.

Moving forward, despite the Court holding that there was no legal basis for a duty to notify in this instance, the Court encouraged school boards to address whether a tenured teacher is voluntarily and knowingly waiving their right to a full-time position: any waiver of a teacher’s tenure rights must be “clear, knowing, and unequivocal.”

By: Gitika Kapoor, Law Clerk
Editor: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

On June 8, 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held in Richter v. Oakland Board of Education that an employee is not required to establish adverse employment action such as demotion or termination in a failure to accommodate disability claim brought against an employer under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).  In addition, the Court considered whether the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”). The Court held that the NJLAD and WCA are not in tension with each other, and the WCA did not bar the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

In Richter, a teacher who suffered from Type 1 diabetes was assigned a late lunch period and experienced a hypoglycemic event in the classroom.  As a result, she suffered a seizure, lost consciousness, and struck her head on a lab table and the floor, causing excessive bleeding. She filed a workers’ compensation claim and received compensation for her medical bills and disability benefits. She later brought a NJLAD action asserting a failure to accommodate disability claim against the Oakland Board of Education. In her complaint, she alleged that, despite repeated requests to alter her schedule, the principal failed to accommodate her request to be assigned an earlier lunch time. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board, which the Appellate Division reversed.

On the NJLAD issue, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a failure to accommodate claim may arise from an “employer’s inaction, silence or inadequate response to reasonable accommodation request,” and that causing harm to the employee through an adverse employment action is not a necessary element of the claim. The Court recognized that a failure to accommodate is itself an actionable harm, because the wrongful act is the employer’s failure to fulfill its duties under the law. Importantly, the Court noted that a lack of demonstrable consequences in the form of adverse employment action may affect damages. 

Regarding the WCA, the Court held that the statute’s exclusive remedy provision did not bar the plaintiff’s NJLAD claim, reasoning that the legislature intended for the NJLAD to supplement other legal remedies. According to the Court, the NJLAD and WCA both aim to protect workers in the workplace and can function harmoniously, without conflicting with each other. Therefore, the WCA did not bar the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

Capehart Blogs

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Categories