In a leading case, the Court has indicated that while an employer is free to discharge an employee at will, the general rule must yield when an employer Aacts contrary to public policy in accordance with the leading New Jersey case of Pierce vs. Ortho@.  

Questions about what may or may not be permissible versus dischargable private behavior by an employer?  Lauren Bercik, Esq. handles the firm’s employment related issues.  She can be contacted at lbercik@hnlawfirm.com.

A recent lawsuit filed by a law enforcement employee who failed to disclose his expunged convictions does not prohibit him from pursuing a workplace discrimination complaint against his employer for workplace harassment but the evidence of the convictions could be used to limit or potentially reduce economic damages.   In a widely anticipated decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Court has ruled that even intentional withholdings of information by prospective employees which are later discovered by the employer is not a defense available to the employer if the employee is able to establish workplace violations actionable under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD).  The Court did rule however, that the evidence of the withheld information prior to employment could (if relevant and material to the outcome to the issues in dispute) serve as a basis for the employer to totally or partially avoid economic damages depending on the particular facts of the case.   This decision clarifies earlier court decisions relating to employees bringing actions against employers knowing that they had previously failed to disclose otherwise material and important information about their private life.   

For more information on this decision, contact Lauren Bercik, Esq. at lbercik@hnlawfirm.com