The Facts

Sergio Lopez was hired in June 2015 as the superintendent of two buildings in Newark owned by Marmic LLC, a realty management company. When Mr. Lopez applied for the position, he provided an invalid Social Security number on a W-4 form. Marmic’s owner, Mike Ruane, initially paid Mr. Lopez $400 per week and provided him a basement apartment for which Mr. Lopez agreed to pay $800 per month.

After two weeks, Mr. Ruane discovered the Social Security number Mr. Lopez provided was invalid. Rather than continue to pay his wages, Mr. Ruane told Mr. Lopez that he could not pay him because doing so would be “against the law.” Instead, Mr. Ruane offered to let Mr. Lopez live in the apartment rent-free in exchange for continuing to perform his duties as the superintendent.

Mr. Lopez continued working under that arrangement for approximately three-and-a-half-years. He cleaned common areas, removed snow and leaves, painted apartments when they were vacant, fixed leaks and broken pipes, responded to tenant maintenance requests, and performed other building upkeep tasks. At the trial, Mr. Ruane confirmed that Mr. Lopez had performed all of those tasks.

Marmic kept no records of the hours Mr. Lopez worked, or the wages it owed him. In December 2018, Marmic fired Mr. Lopez, who filed a lawsuit alleging violations of New Jersey’s wage and hour laws.

Months after the trial, the trial court dismissed the case. It found Mr. Lopez was not credible because he had provided an invalid Social Security number and faulted him for not presenting specific proof about the total number of hours he had worked. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that because Mr. Lopez was an undocumented worker, there could be no employee-employer relationship between the parties.

The Law

Two sets of New Jersey statutes were central to the case. First, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (WHL) requires employers to pay employees who are not exempt from it at least minimum wage for all of the hours they work, plus an overtime premium for any hours they work beyond 40 hour in a week. Second, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (WPL) requires employers to pay the full amount of the wages due on regular paydays. Both statutes define “employee” broadly to include anyone “suffered or permitted to work” by an employer. Neither statute excludes undocumented workers.

In addition, a federal law, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or continue to employ an individual who is not authorized to work in the United States. However, the statute does not expressly prohibit paying wages to undocumented workers for work they already have performed.

Marmic argued that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB barred Mr. Lopez’s claims. In that case, the Court reversed an award of backpay to an undocumented worker who had been unlawfully terminated for union organizing. But, as the New Jersey Supreme Court explained, backpay compensates a worker for wages they would have earned if they not been fired. It is fundamentally different from compensation for work a person already has completed.

The Court’s Ruling

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, and ruled in Mr. Lopez’s favor on every issue.

First, the Court held that federal and state law do not conflict. Specifically, requiring an employer to pay wages for work already performed by an employee does not condone or continue a violation of federal immigration law. To the contrary, the Court reasoned that exempting employers from wage obligations to undocumented workers would give them an incentive to hire undocumented workers and pay them nothing, which would undermine the very purpose of federal immigration law.

Second, the Court rejected Marmic’s argument that its barter arrangement with Mr. Lopez created a relationship outside the scope of New Jersey’s wage and hour statutes. The Court found no broad exception in the WHL or the WPL for barter arrangements. While the WHL permits the fair value of lodging to count toward wages in certain circumstances, that provision is a way to satisfy wage obligations, but not a way to avoid them entirely.

Third, the Court addressed the burden of proof regarding hours worked. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division had faulted Mr. Lopez for not presenting specific records of his hours worked. However, under New Jersey law, it is the employer’s obligation to maintain records of hours worked and wages paid. When an employer fails to keep those records, a rebuttable presumption applies that the employee worked the hours and earned the wages he alleges in his claim. The trial court and the Appellate Division failed to apply that presumption.

Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the trial court’s use of the fact that Mr. Lopez provided Marmic an invalid Social Security number to find he was not credible. The Supreme Court held that evidence that a worker had an invalid Social Security number can serve as a proxy for their immigration status, which in turn could unduly prejudice the worker in a wage and hour case. It made it clear that, going forward, courts must evaluate such evidence carefully before a trial. If there is no legitimate purpose of that evidence other than to establish a person’s immigration status, then it should be excluded.

The Court remanded the case to a different trial judge to determine Mr. Lopez’s damages.

Why Does this Case Matter?

This decision matters for workers across New Jersey for several reasons.

It confirms that employees who perform work are entitled to be paid for it under New Jersey state law, regardless of their immigration status. Employers cannot use a worker’s lack of documentation as a reason to withhold wages after the work has been done.

It also puts employers on notice that barter arrangements do not override wage and hour requirements. An employer cannot substitute free housing, or any other non-cash arrangement, for the minimum wage and overtime pay guaranteed by the law, except in narrow circumstances that still require compliance with hourly wage obligations.

Further, that case it reinforces that the burden of keeping accurate time records falls on the employer, rather than the employee. When an employer fails to maintain accurate time records, the law does not penalize the worker by denying recovery. Instead, it creates a presumption in favor of the employee.

In addition, the ruling provides important guidance on the use of Social Security numbers as evidence in wage payment cases, limiting employers’ ability of employers to use immigration-related evidence to prejudice a judge or jury, and defeat otherwise valid claims for unpaid wages.

For workers who have been denied proper wages under any compensation arrangement, including situations involving barter, cash payments, or no payment at all, the Lopez decision is a reminder that New Jersey’s wage protections are broad and employers cannot contract around them.

Contact a Bergen County Employment Lawyer

If you believe your employer has failed to pay you the wages you are owed, the attorneys at Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. can review the facts of your situation, explain your legal options, and help you determine what steps to take next. The firm represents employees throughout New Jersey. Contact Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. at (201) 777-2250 to schedule a consultation.

The Facts That Led to the Lawsuit

Christopher Massey is a White male who worked for decades in the Borough of Bergenfield Police Department and rose to Deputy Chief. In early 2019, the then-Chief, Cathy Madalone, was out for medical reasons, and Mr. Massey served as Officer in Charge. When Chief Madalone later announced her retirement, the Borough began the process of selecting a new Chief of Police.

The decision was made by a majority vote of the Bergenfield Borough Council, with the Mayor acting as a tie-breaker if needed. Mr. Massey and another candidate, Mustafa Rabboh, were told they would be interviewed for the Chief position. Mr. Rabboh, described in the record as an Arab or Palestinian man of Muslim faith, held the rank of Captain. The opinion notes allegations about Internal Affairs complaints and discipline involving Mr. Rabboh.

Mr. Massey alleged that, at a Police Committee meeting in June 2019, a Councilmember pressed him about candidates the Department was considering hiring and asked what they “looked like.” Mr. Massey testified that when he resisted, he was told he did not “look like the people in the town.”

In August 2019, the candidates were interviewed in a closed executive session. Mr. Massey testified that several Councilmembers were inattentive during his interview, including being on their phones, and that one arrived late. After the interviews, an informal vote favored Mr. Rabboh. Mr. Massey also testified that the Borough Administrator later told him the decision was “all about race” and that the Council had “screwed over” him by choosing Mr. Rabboh.

The Council then held a public meeting on August 20, 2019 to formalize the vote. The opinion recounts that remarks surrounding the swearing-in included repeated references to diversity and the community, including statements that Bergenfield had appointed its first female Chief in 2015 and was now appointing its first Muslim Chief (and only the second in New Jersey).

Mr. Massey filed suit asserting discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), along with federal constitutional and statutory theories, including a § 1983 Equal Protection claim and a § 1981 claim. The federal district court granted summary judgment to Bergenfield and individual defendants, and Mr. Massey appealed.

The Legal Issue the Court Focused on

A central issue on appeal was a heightened burden that some New Jersey courts historically applied in certain “reverse discrimination” cases. Under that approach, a plaintiff who was not in a historically marginalized group had to prove extra “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was an “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

While this appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and rejected a heightened burden of that kind under Title VII. The Third Circuit’s job in Massey was to predict how the New Jersey Supreme Court would treat New Jersey’s version of the rule under the NJLAD.

The Third Circuit’s Holding in Plain Terms

The Third Circuit held that the Background Circumstances Rule should no longer apply to NJLAD claims. The court reasoned that the NJLAD, like Title VII, protects “any” individual, which provides no textual basis for imposing a special requirement on certain plaintiffs. The court also emphasized that the rule has been criticized as vague and difficult to apply consistently. Based on that analysis, the Third Circuit predicted the New Jersey Supreme Court would follow Ames and abandon the heightened requirement for “reverse discrimination” claims.

After removing that extra hurdle, the Third Circuit reviewed the summary judgment record and concluded that genuine disputes of material fact existed on Mr. Massey’s NJLAD discrimination claim. The court pointed to evidence that could support a finding that race or religion played a role in the promotion decision, including testimony about what decision-makers said during the process and in its aftermath. The court stressed that at summary judgment, judges are not supposed to decide whose version is more believable when the record contains evidence that a jury could credit.

The Third Circuit also held that Mr. Massey’s § 1983 Equal Protection claim could proceed, rejecting the idea that an employment discrimination claim of this kind is categorically barred under § 1983 when it is framed as a constitutional Equal Protection violation.

At the same time, the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the § 1981 claim as pleaded, explaining that § 1983 is the vehicle for pursuing § 1981 rights in damages actions against state actors.

The bottom line is straightforward: the court sent the case back for further proceedings, including the potential for trial on the NJLAD and Equal Protection theories.

Why This Decision Matters to Employees in New Jersey

Promotion decisions are often defended with polished explanations: “better interview,” “better fit,” “leadership style,” “needs of the department.” Courts can and do accept legitimate explanations when the evidence supports them. Massey matters because it reinforces that when there is evidence suggesting a protected trait may have influenced the outcome, the case should not be dismissed early just because the employer offers an alternative narrative.

The decision also has broader significance for New Jersey discrimination claims. If New Jersey courts adopt the Third Circuit’s reasoning (as the Third Circuit predicts they will), employees should not face a higher threshold simply because their protected trait does not fit a historically typical discrimination narrative. The question should be the same for everyone: does the evidence support that a protected characteristic played a role in the employment decision.

What Counts as Evidence in a Promotion Discrimination Case

Many employees assume they need a “smoking gun” to move forward. In reality, discrimination cases often turn on practical, everyday proof. Evidence can include timing, inconsistent explanations, deviations from usual procedures, comparative qualifications, and statements tied to protected traits.

Examples that can matter include interview irregularities, shifting reasons for a selection, decision-makers referencing protected traits in connection with the decision, unusual departures from typical posting or scoring processes, or written communications that reveal what was discussed behind the scenes. Even when an employer insists the decision was neutral, patterns in how the process unfolded can help show whether the stated reason is truly credible.

What to Do if You Suspect Discrimination in a Promotion Decision

If a promotion process felt unfair and you suspect discrimination played a role, you can protect yourself without unnecessarily escalating things into a conflict.

• Document what happened and when it happened, including key comments, meeting details, and who was present
• Preserve materials connected to the decision, such as emails, texts, scheduling messages, and any written explanation you were given
• Write down your qualifications and work history while details are fresh, including awards, evaluations, leadership roles, and relevant training
• Consider getting legal advice early, especially before the situation evolves into discipline, retaliation, or pressure to resign

FAQs About Promotion Discrimination in New Jersey

Do you have to prove the employer admitted discrimination to have a case?

No. Direct admissions can help, but many cases are built on circumstantial evidence, such as inconsistent explanations, irregular procedures, and statements that suggest protected traits were considered.

Can you bring a discrimination claim if you were qualified but the employer says the other candidate was a better “fit”?

Yes. “Fit” can be a legitimate consideration, but it can also be a vague label that covers bias. The legal issue is whether the explanation is credible and supported by the record, or whether the facts suggest it was used to hide a discriminatory motive.

What if you are worried about retaliation for complaining internally?

Retaliation is unlawful in New Jersey. Still, the safest approach depends on the workplace and the facts. In many situations, it helps to get legal advice first so you can make decisions that protect your job, your documentation, and your options.

Speak With a Bergen County Employment Lawyer

If you believe you were denied a promotion, disciplined, or otherwise treated differently at work because of race, religion, or another protected trait, it can help to get clear advice about your options under New Jersey law. Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. represents employees in discrimination and retaliation matters throughout New Jersey. To speak with a Bergen County employment lawyer, call (201) 777-2250 or contact Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. online to schedule a consultation.

This case is important if you work in New Jersey and your employer tells you that “vacation time covers everything,” refuses to recognize sick leave rights, requires documentation that feels excessive, or makes it difficult to take time off for protected reasons.

Paid Sick Leave Versus a “Vacation Policy”

William Cano and Raymond Bonelli sued their employer, County Concrete, claiming the company violated the ESLL. Among other things, they argued that the company’s “vacation” policy did not satisfy the requirements of the ESLL.

The trial court found multiple ESLL violations and entered judgments for Mr. Cano and Mr. Boneilli. It also allowed the case to move forward on behalf of other similarly situated employees and awarded damages for a group that ultimately included over one hundred additional workers. The Appellate Division affirmed on appeal.

“We Offer Vacation” Is Not Automatically Complaint with the ESLL

As the Appellate Division recognized in Cano v. County Concrete Corp., the ESLL allows employers to use a PTO model instead of a separate “sick leave bank,” but only if employees can use their PTO for all of the reasons the ESLL protects, the PTO accrues at least as generously as the statute requires, and there are no other restrictions that conflict with the ESLL.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the employer’s policy was not compliant because, in practice, it did not provide paid leave for the full range of ESLL-protected reasons and imposed restrictions that undercut the law’s rules regarding how time off accrues and can be used. For example, it did not allow employees to use PTO for a family member’s diagnosis, care or treatment for a health condition; a family member being a victim of domestic or sexual violence; or time off for covered school-related conferences, meetings, functions and events for the employee’s child. It also impermissibly allowed the employer to require a doctor’s note for illness-related absences of less than three days.

Notice and Recordkeeping Violations Can Seriously Hurt an Employer’s Defense

The ESLL requires employers to post and provide notice of employees’ rights under it, and requires employers to keep certain records for five years. In Cano, the courts found the company’s notice was inadequate and not properly provided across worksites, and failed to provide the required individualized notice.

The recordkeeping problems were a big deal. The courts found the employer’s records did not adequately reflect employees’ hours worked and sick leave earned sufficiently to be able to determine whether the company was complying with the requirements of the ESLL.

Similarly Situated Employees May Be Included Without a Traditional Class Case

This case also is notable because the court allowed the claims of “similarly situated employees” to move forward without the usual class certification process people associate with large workplace cases. The court focused on the language in New Jersey’s wage and hour enforcement framework that permits employees to pursue claims on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees.

The trial court implemented safeguards after trial to address fairness and due process, including a process for additional employees to affirmatively opt in and confirm representation. The Appellate Division agreed that, in these circumstances, the employer had notice and opportunity to defend itself against those claims.

What This Decision Means for New Jersey Employees

If you are wondering whether your situation fits what the ESLL protects, this case is a useful guidepost. You may want to take a closer look if any of the following sound familiar:

• Your employer says you “only have vacation” time, which you are not allowed to use for your own medical appointments, medical appointments for a family member, or other ESLL-protected reasons
• You are required to provide a doctor’s note or other documentation when you were off from work for less than three days
• The company routinely denies requests for time off for medical reasons or other reasons covered by the ESLL, or acts as if granting those requests is discretionary
• Your workplace does not post ESLL notices or provide clear written information about your rights under it
• Your pay records do not show sick leave accrual and use in any clear way
• Newer employees are told they cannot take any paid time off until they hit a tenure milestone, even though the ESLL is based on hours worked

If you face these types of issues, it does not necessarily mean you have a claim, but it does mean you should consider getting legal advice before you assume your employer’s policy is “just how it is.”

Talk With Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. About New Jersey Earned Sick Leave Issues

If you believe your employer’s paid leave policy did not comply with New Jersey law, or you were denied earned sick leave you should have been allowed to use, the Bergen County employment lawyers at Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. can help you understand your options and what next steps make sense for your situation. To speak with an attorney, call (201) 777-2250.

The Takeaway

In McDermott v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., the Appellate Division held that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Harassment Act (EFAA), can make a pre-dispute arbitration agreement unenforceable for the whole case, as long as the case includes a viable claim involving sexual harassment or sexual assault. In other words, an employer may not be able to force you to split your claims, with part of your lawsuit in court and the rest in private arbitration, if your case includes a properly pled sexual harassment claim.

This was a matter of first impression in New Jersey, meaning New Jersey appellate courts had not previously issued a published decision on the scope of the EFAA in this context.

What Happened in the Two Cases the Court Decided Together

The court issued one published opinion covering two separate workplace cases that raised the same core issue.
In the first case, the employee, Megan McDermott, alleged she experienced sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination while working for a mortgage company. She also asserted additional claims tied to her employment relationship.

The trial court allowed her claims relating to sexual harassment to stay in court, but sent her other claims to arbitration.
In the second case, the employee, Geraldine Rivera-Santana, alleged a hostile work environment involving sexual harassment, along with pregnancy-related allegations including retaliation and failure to accommodate. The trial court kept the sexual harassment-based claim in court but ordered that her other claims had to decided in arbitration because it viewed them as arising from a different set of facts.

The Appellate Division rejected the split-the-case approach, and ruled that once the EFAA applies, it can apply to the entire case.

Why This Matters If You Signed an Arbitration Agreement

Arbitration clauses often change the playing field. Arbitration is private. The rules can be different than in court. The ability to appeal typically is very limited. There is no right to a jury trial. Many employees understandably feel that being forced out of court, especially in a sexual harassment case, can make it harder for them to be heard.

This Appellate Division’s opinion gives employees more leverage when sexual harassment is part of their story. If you have a case with multiple claims that all stem from your employment, and one of those claims relates to sexual harassment or sexual assault, then the court’s decision supports keeping everything together in one public court case, instead of forcing you to fight on two separate tracks.

There Are Important Limits to Know

This decision is powerful, but there a few things to keep in mind. First, most courts have concluded that the EFAA applies only to disputes or claims that arose or accrued on or after March 3, 2022.

Second, you still need a viable sexual harassment or sexual assault claim, or a related claim such as retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Courts can dismiss claims that are not adequately pled, and employers may try to argue that a harassment allegation was added only to avoid arbitration.

What You Should Do if This Sounds Like Your Situation

If you believe your employer is trying to force your case into arbitration, the details matter, including what your agreement says, what happened and when, and how your claims fit together under New Jersey law and the EFAA. It is also important to act quickly because waiting can limit your options.

A few practical steps can help you protect yourself right away.

• Save the documents you already have, including your offer letter, arbitration agreement, handbook acknowledgments, pay records, and key emails or messages.
• Prepare a timeline while it is still fresh, including dates, witnesses, and how the conduct affected your work.
• Avoid signing a separation or release paperwork without understanding what rights you are giving up.
  Those steps are not a substitute for legal advice, but they can preserve facts that often become critical later.

Jonathan Nirenberg’s Connection to This Decision

I had the honor of submitting an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of Ms. Rivera-Santana appeal, and to participate in the oral argument, on behalf of the National Employment Lawyer’s Association of New Jersey (NELA-NJ). That work reflects our firm’s commitment to protecting employees’ rights when serious workplace misconduct is at issue.

Talk With a New Jersey Employment Lawyer About Forced Arbitration and Sexual Harassment Claims

If you experienced sexual harassment at work and your employer is pointing to an arbitration clause to keep your case out of court, you deserve a clear answer about what the law allows and what your next move should be. To speak with a New Jersey employment lawyer at Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C., contact us online or call (201) 777-2250 to schedule an initial consultation. We represent individuals throughout New Jersey and offer consultations in person, by phone, and by Zoom.

If you are searching for a Bergen County employment lawyer because you believe your employer passed you over due to age, this opinion can help you understand they type of facts that may support your claim.

The Background

Guy Campagna worked for the Washington Township Public School District as a physical education teacher. He began with the District in 2006 and served as the sole PE teacher at an elementary school. According to the court’s opinion, he maintained a clean disciplinary history, received positive evaluations, and was recognized as the District’s Teacher of the Year for the 2017 to 2018 academic year.

In September 2020, the District posted an anticipated vacancy for a physical education position at Bunker Hill Middle School. Mr. Campagna applied because he wanted to transfer after many years teaching at the elementary level. He participated in a first-round remote interview with the middle school principal and assistant principal.
The District chose not to select Mr. Campagna for a second-round interview. It ultimately hired a 31-year-old candidate from another school district. Mr. Campagna was 50 years old at the time.

After the District made its decision, the principal called Mr. Campagna and indicated that he chose to advance “novice teachers” and explained that he preferred candidates who he could “groom” and “train from scratch” to fit the culture he was building.

Mr. Campagna questioned why experience would make him less adaptable, and emphasized that he took direction and worked within whatever systems were in place. The principal reportedly clarified that he was not saying Mr. Campagna could not perform the job, but that the candidate the District selected could fulfill certain aspects “in a better way,” and he reassured him that he did not doubt Mr. Campagna was a team player.

Those details mattered later, because the District’s litigation position emphasized different themes.

The Legal Claims

Mr. Campagna asserted age discrimination claims under two laws: the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). Both laws prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or promote someone because of their age. The court applied the same basic framework to analyze both claims.

At this stage of the case, the question was not whether Mr. Campagna definitively proved discrimination. Rather, the question was whether the District was entitled to win as a matter of law before trial. The court held that it was not, and allowed the case to proceed.

Why the Judge Denied Summary Judgment

The judge’s ruling turned on how discrimination cases can be proven with circumstantial evidence, and whether a reasonable jury could view its explanations as a pretext or cover for age bias.

Step One Was Not a High Bar

On its motion, the District argued Mr. Campagna was not “qualified” because he supposedly did not interview well, and the job required strong interpersonal skills. The court rejected that argument, explaining that “qualification” for purposes of the first step of a motion for summary judgment is measured by objective requirements, such as education and experience, rather than by subjective impressions about how an interview went. Since the District did not dispute that Mr. Campagna had the objective background to be a viable candidate, the court found he met this part of the test.

The Age Gap Supported an Inference of Discrimination

The court also found the 19-year age difference between Mr. Campagna, who was 50, and the selected candidate, who was 31, to be significant. That disparity was more than enough to support an inference of age discrimination under the governing case law.

The District tried to argue that the administrators involved in the hiring decision did not know anyone’s age. The court explained that a plaintiff does not need direct proof that the decisionmakers knew his exact birthdate. A jury can infer awareness from common indicators like appearance and experience timelines. Here, the court noted that the resumes reflected career dates that could allow someone to infer relative age, and the administrators plainly focused on Mr. Campagna’s experience during the hiring process.

The Court Found Evidence a Jury Could Treat as “Pretext”

At the final stage, the court focused on whether a jury could reasonably disbelieve the District’s stated reasons for selecting another job candidate. The judge highlighted multiple points that could support that conclusion, including:

First, the District’s explanations could be viewed as shifting. The principal’s phone call emphasized advancing “novice teachers,” yet the District later leaned heavily on alleged interpersonal concerns. The contrast between praising Mr. Campagna  as a team player during the telephone call and later arguing he was difficult to work with is the kind of inconsistency juries are allowed to consider evidence of discrimination.=

Second, the court noted the tension between the District’s claimed “age blindness” and the record showing administrators focused on experience and used language that plausibly could connect to age, such as preferring “novice” candidates.

Third, the court observed that the District’s negative characterization of Mr. Campagna was not uniformly supported by other testimony in the record. For example, his direct supervisor had previously nominated him for Teacher of the Year and described him in glowing terms, and the assistant principal did not share the principal’s harsh view of his interview.

Putting those points together, the judge concluded that a reasonable jury could find the District’s justifications are unworthy of belief and infer a discriminatory motive. Because of that, the court allowed the case to proceed.

Why This Decision Matters to Employees Considering an Age Discrimination Claim

Employees often get told that a promotion or transfer went to someone “younger,” more “dynamic,” “new blood” or supposedly easier to train, while the employer later insists its decision was purely about “fit” or “interpersonal skills.” This decision is a reminder that courts can treat subjective rationales with caution, especially when the record includes significant age disparities, strong performance history, and evidence that the employer’s story changed over time.

If you are dealing with a similar situation, documenting what you were told at the time, preserving written communications, and keeping a clear timeline of events can matter, because inconsistencies can become evidence. A Bergen County employment lawyer can help you evaluate whether what happened to you fits within the ADEA, the NJLAD, or both, and whether your evidence supports a legal claim.

Speak With a Bergen County Employment Lawyer

If you believe you were denied a job opportunity, transfer, or promotion because of your age, Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. can help you understand your options under New Jersey law and federal law. To discuss your situation with a Bergen County employment lawyer, call Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. at (201) 777-2250.

For New Jersey employees looking for guidance from a Bergen County employment lawyer, this case reinforces that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) does not just apply to conduct by immediate supervisors or the company itself. It also extends to actions by decision-makers who participate in or ignore unlawful conduct.

What Happened in Dominguez v. Novo Nordisk

The plaintiff, Roxann Dominguez, worked for Novo Nordisk as a Regional Account Executive and later as the Director of National Accounts Strategic Planning. Based in Texas, she frequently interacted with the company’s leadership in New Jersey, where much of its operations were centered.

Ms. Dominguez’s early career at the company was marked by success. She received strong performance evaluations, maximum bonuses, and recognition as “top talent.” But her lawsuit alleges that the work environment deteriorated sharply after she witnessed and spoke up about discriminatory behavior.

Specifically, Ms. Dominguez’ described several key events:

• At a team meeting, a senior male director allegedly screamed at a female colleague and called her a sexist slur. Management did not intervene, so Ms. Dominguez and another a female coworker defended their colleague.
• Ms. Dominguez later reported this behavior, along with a separate incident involving homophobic comments at a work event. Her supervisor said he would report the behavior to the Human Resources Department, but failed to do so.
• Ms. Dominguez claimed that Novo Nordisk routinely excluded women from high-visibility industry event. The company instead selected men for these opportunities because they supposedly “needed visibility,” and later promoted those men.
• Ms. Dominguez’s supervisor made repeated comments tying her career path to motherhood, questioning what “kind of mother” she was, and suggesting other positions at the company that would be “better for mothers.”

According to her complaint, Novo Nordisk’s retaliatory behavior escalated after Ms. Dominguez reported these issues. She stated that the company excluded her from meetings, stripped her of responsibilities, and denied her request to have a third person present during meetings with her supervisor. She claims that, after she filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the company cut her bonus and raise in half.

During a later restructuring, Novo Nordisk eliminated her position, and she was the only member of her team it did not reassign somewhere else. She further alleged that high-level executives knew about repeated concerns about her supervisor’s treatment of women, received negative survey feedback about him, but still approved his decisions that harmed her career.

The Legal Issue: Aiding and Abetting Under the NJLAD

In addition to her federal claims, Ms. Dominguez alleged violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, including “aiding and abetting” liability against three individual executives.

The defendants moved to dismiss the aiding-and-abetting claim for two of those executives, arguing that:

• They were not her direct supervisors, and
• Her claims did not plausibly allege they knowingly assisted discriminatory or retaliatory actions.

The court rejected those arguments and allowed the claims to proceed.

The judge explained that:

• A person does not need to be a worker’s direct supervisor to be liable for aiding and abetting. Rather, it is enough that they hold supervisory authority and participate in or approve key employment decisions.
• Senior executives may be personally liable when they approve pay cuts, deny opportunities, or participate in termination decisions that are tied to discrimination or retaliation.
• Aiding and abetting can include active involvement, or passive involvement such as ignoring known harassment or discrimination.

According to the opinion, the ultimate question is whether the individual gave “substantial assistance” to the unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

Based on Ms. Dominguez’s allegations, the court concluded that the executives’ actions could constitute substantial assistance.  As a result, it allowed the claims against those individual defendants to move forward to discovery.

This ruling does not determine whether Ms. Dominguez ultimately will prevail. It simply recognizes that her allegations were sufficient to allow her to advance to the next phase.

Why This Case Matters for New Jersey Employees

This decision provides several important takeaways for New Jersey workers:

• Corporate hierarchy does not shield individuals. Senior executives may be held personally responsible when they participate in discriminatory or retaliatory decisions.
• Documentation is key. The plaintiff’s detailed account of who approved what decisions—and when—played a major role in the court’s analysis.
• Inaction can be actionable. When leaders know about discrimination and look the other way, their silence can support an aiding-and-abetting claim.
• Retaliation claims remain strong under the NJLAD. Even subtle shifts in responsibilities, pay, or career opportunities can be treated as retaliatory when it is tied to a protected activity.

Workers who experience discrimination should document what happens, save relevant emails or texts, and note who participated in major employment decisions.

Speak with a Bergen County Employment Lawyer

If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination, retaliation, or harassment at work, Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. is here to help. Our firm represents employees across New Jersey in cases involving the NJLAD, federal anti-discrimination laws, and claims against individual decision-makers.

To discuss your situation with an experienced Bergen County employment lawyer, call (201) 777-2250 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.

The Background of the Case

Samantha Naranjo worked as a flight attendant for United Airlines from 1999 until the company fired her in June 2022. During her employment, she was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease—a serious, chronic medical condition that can cause severe digestive flareups. To manage her condition, Ms. Naranjo regularly applied for intermittent medical leaves under the FMLA.

In May 2022, Ms. Naranjo called out of work due to her Crohn’s symptoms. A few days later, she tested positive for COVID-19 and followed the company’s policies for pandemic-related absences. However, despite notifying her supervisors and providing documentation, United still gave her an attendance point for her May 13 absence. Under United’s strict attendance policy, employees who accumulate 30 or more “points” face termination.

By June 6, 2022, Ms. Naranjo had reached the 30-point threshold and United fired her. She filed a lawsuit alleging United violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), and the FMLA by discriminating against her because of her disability, failing to accommodate her medical condition, and retaliating against her for seeking a protected medical leave.

United Files for Summary Judgment

United Airlines moved to dismiss the case through a motion for summary judgment, arguing its decision to terminate Ms. Naranjo’s employment was justified. Specifically, it claimed it fired her for excessive unexcused absences, in violation of company policy, rather than because of her disability. United also argued that since “dependability” was an essential function of a flight attendant’s job, allowing intermittent absences for Crohn’s disease was not a reasonable accommodation.

Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate Claims

The court found substantial evidence supporting Ms. Naranjo’s allegations of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA and the NJLAD.

United did not dispute that Ms. Naranjo had a disability. Instead, it argued that she was not qualified for her job because she could not meet attendance requirements. The court disagreed, finding that whether “dependability” was truly an essential job function was a factual question that must be decided by a jury.

Ms. Naranjo testified that she informed her supervisors about her Crohn’s disease and requested help managing her absences. Rather than assist her, she alleges one supervisor told her to “do better” and that she “can’t call in anymore.” Further, since most of her attendance points were linked directly to her medical condition, the court determined that a jury could find United discriminated against her by counting disability-related absences against her.

The court also found evidence suggesting United failed to make a good faith effort to accommodate Ms. Naranjo’s disability. She repeatedly asked for assistance and explained her situation, but no one directed her to the appropriate accommodation process or offered her any alternatives.

FMLA Interference and Retaliation

The court also denied United’s motion on Ms. Naranjo’s FMLA claims. She alleged that United interfered with her right to take a medical leave and retaliated against her by terminating her because she sought time off for work that was protected under the Act.

United argued that Ms. Naranjo missed a deadline to submit a medical certification for her May 13 absence. The court found factual disputes about whether her late submission was excused by extenuating circumstances, including her COVID-19 diagnosis and ongoing Crohn’s flareup. The judge also noted that United could have extended the deadline or reconsidered its decision once it received the certification.

These unresolved issues, combined with the timing of her termination just weeks after she sought leave, were enough for the court to let Ms. Naranjo’s case move forward.

What This Decision Means for New Jersey Workers

The ruling in Naranjo v. United Airlines, Inc. serves as an important reminder that employees in New Jersey have the right to take a medical leave and to request reasonable accommodations without fear of losing their jobs. Employers must consider each request individually and cannot use attendance policies to avoid their legal obligations.

For workers with chronic medical conditions, documenting communication with supervisors and maintaining copies of medical certifications can be essential. Courts are willing to look beyond an employer’s stated reasons for termination when there is evidence that disability-related absences or a protected request for a medical leave played a role in its decision.

Speak with a Bergen County Employment Lawyer

If you believe your employer has denied you a reasonable accommodation, interfered with your FMLA rights, or retaliated against you because you requested a medical leave, Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. can help. Our attorneys have extensive experience handling disability discrimination and retaliation claims under both federal and New Jersey law.

Please call (201) 777-2250 or contact us online to schedule a consultation with a Bergen County employment lawyer who can protect your rights and help you move forward.

This case serves as an important reminder that employees who experience sexual harassment and retaliation can challenge the employer’s actions under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

The Facts of the Case

Daniela Burga began working for UniFirst Corporation in 2019 as a customer service representative. Her role involved managing client accounts and working closely with route service managers. Four of her assigned routes were supervised by Victor Gomez, a UniFirst manager.

Soon after she started, Ms. Burga reported troubling behavior from Mr. Gomez. She testified that Mr. Gomez repeatedly commented about her appearance, requested to take her photograph, and at times took photos without her consent. Matters escalated when, during a team meeting, Mr. Gomez made an obscene and vulgar sexual gesture directed at her in front of her colleagues.

Ms. Burga knew Mr. Gomez had a history of harassment. Another female employee had previously reported him for similar behavior, and although UniFirst briefly suspended him, he remained employed. This history made Ms. Burga fearful that Mr. Gomez’s behavior toward her would continue.

When Ms. Burga reported Mr. Gomez’s conduct, UniFirst investigated and corroborated her account. Witnesses confirmed his lewd gesture, and Mr. Gomez admitted to taking her photograph. Despite these findings, UniFirst suspended Mr. Gomez for only three days, required him to retake harassment training, and issued a “final warning.” However, it did not remove him from the office or prevent from interacting with Ms. Burga.

Instead of taking steps to protect her from future harassment, UniFirst reassigned Ms. Burga from the client accounts she had worked hard to build. She testified that she felt like she had been punished for coming forward. Believing that her employer would not protect her from further abuse, she resigned.

The Appellate Division’s Decision

The trial court dismissed Ms. Burga’s claims, ruling that UniFirst had done enough to address the issue. The Appellate Division strongly disagreed, reversing the lower court’s ruling.

The appellate court found that Ms. Burga had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether UniFirst had subjected her to a hostile work environment in violation of the NJLAD. The judges noted:

• Mr. Gomez’s repeated comments and nonconsensual photos reasonably could be seen as harassment directed at her because of her sex.
• His obscene gesture during a team meeting was a serious and humiliating act that alone could support a hostile work environment claim.
• UniFirst’s remedial steps were inadequate, particularly given Mr. Gomez’s prior history of harassment.

The court also revived Ms. Burga’s constructive discharge claim. It emphasized that forcing her to give up her client accounts, while failing to ensure she would be protected from Mr. Gomez, could lead a jury to find her resignation was not voluntary but rather the product of intolerable working conditions.

Finally, the court held that UniFirst managers could face individual liability for aiding and abetting discrimination if they knowingly failed to take effective action to prevent it.

Why This Case Matters for Employees

For workers in Bergen County, this ruling reinforces several important points:

• A single severe incident of harassment can be enough to be legally actionable. Even one humiliating or obscene act can create a hostile work environment.
• If a company’s response to a harassment complaint leaves the victim vulnerable, the company can be liable.
• Resigning from a job based on a hostile work environment is not necessarily fatal to a wrongful termination claim. If the work conditions were sufficiently intolerable, employees may be able to pursue a constructive discharge claim.
• Managers sometimes can be personally accountable. Supervisors who ignore or minimize harassment complaints risk liability under the LAD.

This decision demonstrates protections for employees across New Jersey and makes clear courts will not tolerate superficial responses to workplace harassment.

Speak with a Bergen County Employment Lawyer

If you have faced sexual harassment, retaliation, or other forms of workplace discrimination, then you do not need to handle the situation alone. The experienced team of Bergen County employment lawyers at Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. has helped employees across New Jersey assert their rights under the Law Against Discrimination. Call (201) 777-2250 or contact us online to schedule a consultation with an attorney today.

More specifically, the amended law prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend an employer-sponsored meeting, or requiring them to participate in communications with the employer, that express the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters. It defines “political matters” to include the decision to join or support any political party, or any political, civic, community, fraternal, or labor organization or association. It also includes electioneering, which means communications that advocate for a political candidate within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a municipal, runoff, school board, special or general election, as well as other communication that clearly identify a public question or referendum, or that no reasonable person could interpret in any way other than to communicate support or opposition regarding a public question or referendum.

This new law includes numerous specific exceptions. For example, it does not:

The Facts of the Case

Akmal Aquil, a City of Newark employee, is a practicing Muslim. He alleges that his work schedule conflicted with his religious obligations. Specifically, he sought to attend Jumu’ah, the weekly congregational prayer each Friday. He told Newark that he could adjust his lunch break, make up time later in the day, or work additional hours during the week to ensure he still completed his job duties.

According to Mr. Aquil, the City refused these reasonable proposals and instead disciplined him for leaving work on Fridays. Specifically, Newark suspended him, claiming he had engaged in public unbecoming a public employee because he left work early to attend religious services without permission.

Mr. Aquil filed a charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After receiving two right-to-sue letters, he brought a lawsuit in federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging that Newark had engaged in religious discrimination and a failure to accommodate his faith.

Religious Accommodations Under Title VII

Like the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), Title VII requires employers to provide employee’s reasonable accommodations for their sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. Depending on the circumstances, reasonable accommodations can include things like modified breaks, adjusted shifts, or changes to start and end times.

For workers, this means you can request changes that allow you to fulfill your religious obligations, as long as the changes do not prevent you from performing your essential job duties. Clearly explaining your request, offering specific alternatives, and putting your request in writing often can strengthen your position, especially if a dispute arises.

How the Court Came to Its Decision

The court denied the City’s request to dismiss the case and allowed the Title VII religious discrimination and accommodation claim to proceed. The judge determined that Mr. Aquil had alleged enough facts to support a possible violation of the law.

This does not mean that Mr. Aquil has won his case. Rather, it means the court found his claims were sufficient to continue to the next stage, where both sides can gather evidence. An ultimate decision in the case will not come until after the facts are fully developed.

Why This Matters for Workers in Bergen County

This ruling is a reminder that you should not have to give up your religious practices to keep your job. If you have a sincere religious need, you have the right to request a reasonable accommodation. If your employer refuses or retaliates against you, then you may be able to challenge that decision.

Cases like Mr. Aquil’s show that when workers put their requests in writing, document the employer’s response, and follow the required steps, courts can and do allow these claims to move forward.

While this case involved Title VII, a federal law, the NJLAD provides similar protections for workers in New Jersey. In other words, employees have multiple legal avenues to pursue if they experience religious discrimination.

Speak with a Bergen County Employment Lawyer

If you have been denied a reasonable accommodation for your religious practices or have faced discrimination at work because of your faith, Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. can help you protect your legal rights. Call (201) 777-2250 or contact us online to speak with an experienced Bergen County employment lawyer about your situation.