Newsletter June 2017

Newsletter June 2017



Hyderally & Associates, P.C. June 2017 Newsletter

UNDERSTANDING THE TIMEFRAMES FOR FILING EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS

An employee who has a potential claim against his employer must be cognizant of the deadline to bring the particular claim. Different types of employment claims are governed by different deadlines by which such claims must be filed. Similarly, some claims may require as a prerequisite that the employee first exhaust other remedies. These procedural issues are just as important as the substance of the claim itself, as if they are not followed, a claim may be subject to dismissal.

In New Jersey, employees may elect to bring claims for violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) in the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (“DCR”), or the New Jersey Superior Court. The LAD contains an “election of remedies” provision that requires a complainant to make an election of remedies between either the DCR or the Superior Court. N.J.S.A. 10:5-13.  The deadline for filing a discrimination claim under the LAD with the DCR is within six months of the adverse action, while the deadline, or statute of limitations, to bring a claim under the LAD in New Jersey Superior Court is within two years of the adverse action.

The initial selection of the DCR, however, does not itself bar the Plaintiff from filing in Superior Court. Rather, only while the DCR action is pending, or after the DCR has rendered a “final determination” is the Plaintiff barred from pursuing an action under the LAD in Superior Court. Specifically, the applicable provision states:

[T]he procedure herein provided shall, while pending, be exclusive; and the final determination therein shall exclude any other action, civil or criminal, based on the same grievance of the individual concerned.

N.J.S.A. §10:5-27.

Thus, once the DCR renders a final decision on an employee’s discrimination claim, the employee is precluded from then also pursuing the claim in New Jersey Superior Court. However, if the DCR has not yet rendered a final decision, the employee can withdraw from the DCR, and file the claim in Superior Court, for up to 2 years from the adverse action. Rodriguez v. Raymour Furniture Co., Inc., 225 N.J. 343, 358 (2016); Cornacchiulo v. Alternative Inv. Solutions, L.L.C., 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1415, *6-7 (App. Div., June 19, 2012), citing Hernandez v. Region Nine Hous. Corp., 146 N.J. 645, 656 (1996); Aldrich v. Manpower Temp. Servs., 277 N.J. Super. 500, 505 (App. Div. 1994), certif. denied, 139 N.J. 442 (1995); Wilson Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 158 N.J. 263, 270 (1999).

Complicating things further, different time frames apply to federal discrimination claims under federal discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. Such federal discrimination claims may be pursued in Federal District Court only after the employee has filed a claim with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and has received a right to sue letter from the EEOC. The deadline to bring a claim with the EEOC in New Jersey is 300 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place. If the EEOC does not make a determination, or finds no cause, and issues a Right to Sue notice, then the employee can pursue those claims in Federal District Court, within 90 days of the Right to Sue notice. 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

Complicating things even further, when a party files a claim with the EEOC, it is automatically dual filed with the DCR, although oftentimes employees do not realize that this has occurred. Thus, if an employee subsequently decides to pursue New Jersey state claims under the LAD in Superior Court, the simultaneously filed DCR matter must be withdrawn prior to the DCR rendering a final determination. Otherwise, the employee will be barred from pursuing LAD claims in Superior Court.

For the layperson, navigating the statutory deadlines for filing discrimination claims may appear confusing, but what is clear is that they cannot be ignored without the risk of losing the ability to pursue a claim.

 

By Ty Hyderally, Esq. and Francine Foner, Esq.


Hyderally & Associates, P.C.

EMPLOYERS MAY NOT REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO
AGREE TO SHORTEN THE TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR LAD CLAIMS

In a case of first impression, The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Rodriguez v. Raymour Furniture Co., Inc., 225 N.J. 343 (2016), that employers may not shorten the statute of limitations for discrimination claims under New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:15-12) (“LAD”) through an employment contract. In Rodriguez,Plaintiff signed a job application which clearly stated, in bold and capitalized font, that any claim or lawsuit against the company must be filed within six months of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. Plaintiff testified that he did not understand the meaning of the provision, however, he did not ask any questions and signed the application. Id. at 348-49. Seven months after Plaintiff’s termination he filed a lawsuit against the company for violation of the LAD based on actual or perceived disability. Id. at 350. Both the Trial Court and Appellate Division granted the company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case because Plaintiff filed the complaint beyond the six-month deadline contained in the employment application. Id. at 350 -51. The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling that the contractual provision was enforceable because it was clear and unambiguous, Plaintiff had ample time to review it, and six months was a reasonable amount of time. Id. at 351.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court held that an employer cannot shorten a statute of limitations for LAD claims by private agreement, as that would frustrate the purpose underlying the LAD of eradicating discrimination in the workplace. Id. at 346. In reaching its decision, the Rodriguez Court considered that a six-month statutory period would result in an attorney having to file suit under extreme time pressure, without being able to conduct a thorough investigation as to the claims. Id. at 359.  In addition, such a shortened statute of limitations could potentially increase the number of claims filed, because terminated employees would be compelled to quickly file their claims, without having sufficient time to reflect on whether they should proceed with a lawsuit. Id. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice LaVecchia further opined that such a shortened time period in which to bring LAD claims would result in employers having less time to “investigate [workplace complaints], and respond appropriately to limit their liability.” Id. at 363, citing Aguas v. State, 220 N.J. 494, 515-17 (2015).

The Court further observed that the alternative relief available to victims of discrimination in the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (“DCR”), which sets a six-month time limit to file claims, does not alter a party’s rights under the LAD to elect the remedies provided thereunder, including the 2-year statute of limitations period. Id. at 358.  The Court opined that the dual statutory scheme is intended to permit a party to elect commencing an action in the DCR within six months of the adverse action, and if desired, to withdraw from the DCR before a final decision is rendered, and pursue the claim in Superior Court up to the 2-year limit under the LAD. Id. The Court further took note of the fact that since the LAD was interpreted as having a 2-year statute of limitations 23 years ago, the Legislature has not amended the LAD to shorten the statutory period, despite the many other amendments made to the LAD during that time period. Id. at 357-58. Thus, shortening the LAD’s 2-year statute of limitations would thwart that statutory scheme.  Id. at 362.

The Rodriguez Court endeavored to strike a balance between the freedom to contract and public policy. The Court distinguished a private contract to submit a LAD claim to an alternative dispute resolution process as being consistent with public policy underlying the LAD, as long as the contract does not otherwise remove any substantive rights granted by the LAD. In contrast, the Court observed that contracting to shorten the statute of limitations to six months would result in forcing litigants to choose between filing with the DCR or filing with the Superior Court, and foreclose the option of choosing to begin with a filing with DCR.  However, the Rodriguez Court left open the possibility of employers being able to shorten other statutes of limitations, by limiting its holding strictly to LAD claims in non-negotiable employee applications. Id. at 367.

 

By Ty Hyderally, Esq., Francine Foner, Esq., and Jacqueline Larsen, Law Clerk


Hyderally & Associates, P.C.

NJ LEGISLATURE INTRODUCES BILL TO LIMIT EMPLOYEE WAIVERS

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez, as well as other New Jersey Supreme Court cases addressing waiver of rights in employment arbitration provisions, a bill was recently introduced in the New Jersey Legislature that appears intended to codify these rulings.   NJ Bill A-4173, provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for an employer to “(1) require an employee or prospective employee to make the waiver of rights … including the right to a jury trial; (2) request any employee or prospective employee to waive any claims prior to the existence of an actual dispute…” N.J. Bill A-4173 (t)(1) – (2). This bill is intended to codify New Jersey Supreme Court holdings such as Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (1993) and Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., 225 N.J. 343 (2016). In Montells, the Courtheld that the applicable statute of limitations for claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) is two years. Montells, supra at 282.

The Court in Rodriguez held that an employment contract cannot alter the two-year statute of limitations for actions brought under the LAD. Rodriguez, supra at 344. This bill is also consistent with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s holding in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014).  In Atalese, the New Jersey Supreme Court analyzed the language in the arbitration clause and held that arbitration of statutory or constitutional claims may not be compelled where the arbitration clause does not contain a clear and unambiguous waiver of the right to bring a claim to court or to have a jury resolve a dispute.  Id. at 447.

Bill A-4173 also proposes amending the LAD to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee or prospective employee to waive his or her rights to a trial by jury under the LAD as a condition of employment. A-4173 (t)(1). The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to trial by jury, however, in recent years it has become increasingly common for employers to require employees to submit to alternative dispute resolution, specifically arbitration. However, before the bill was voted on by the Judiciary Committee on May 18, 2017, the portion addressing mandatory arbitration agreements was removed. (A-4173; 2016-2017 Reg. Sess. New Jersey State Assembly).

At this point it is unclear whether the amended version will become law. What is clear, however, is that both versions of the Bill provide that LAD claims have a two-year statute of limitations that is unalterable.

 

By Ty Hyderally, Esq., Francine Foner, Esq., and Jacqueline Larsen, Law Clerk



These articles are for informational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice, and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice with regard to your particular set of facts. This newsletter may constitute attorney advertising. This newsletter is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a newsletter may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state of jurisdiction.

  • “I want to sincerely thank you and your staff for your resolve and professional zeal in resolving my issues with [company name removed for privacy reasons]. I especially want to thank Rob Szyba who handled these proceedings with dignity and a great deal of knowledge and professionalism. He knows what buttons to push and when to push them. He is an asset to your organization. I will gladly recommend your services to anyone in need. It was a privilege to deal with you and your team.”
    J.B.
  • “It has been my pleasure to work with Ty through the ABA's Employment Rights and Responsibilities Committee. His contributions to the Committee have been significant due to his knowledge of employment law and his tireless devotion to teaching trial skills. His service to the profession and his clients is commendable.”
    Paula Ardelean
  • “Ty is dedicated to his work and his clients. He knows his stuff, and he goes the extra mile to do the best job possible. Ty is a pleasure to work with!”
    Piper Hoffman
  • “It is with pleasure that I recommend Ty. He is a tireless advocate on behalf of employees and their concerns. His efforts are demonstrated not only in his practice, but also in his exceptional additional efforts to represent this community in professional associations, such as the ABA. He has the knowledge base and the tireless effort that makes working with him productive, but always enjoyable too.”
    Darlene Vorachek
  • “I have worked with Ty on several legal presentations. I represent employers, and Ty has invited me to participate as a panelist representing employers' perspectives on labor and employment matters. Ty is always well-prepared and very knowledgeable about developments in employment law, and is always a pleasure to work with.”
    Chris Dalton
  • “Ty is an excellent lawyer who completely understands the legal process and does everything in his power to help his clients. He was a pleasure to work with and would recommend him to anyone seeking his expertise.”
    Joseph Alvaro
  • “Ty is a widely recognized expert in the area of employment law. His aggressive representation of clients is backed up by an extraordinary breadth of knowledge and attention to detail.”
    Edward Kopelson
  • “I have known Ty professionally for more than two years. He is nationally recognized as one of the best employment attorney's in the country and I know his practice will continue to grow!”
    Betsy Zaplin
  • “ - Ty was a great help for my associate and I during litigation. He showed the highest degree of professionalism and did in fact help us to achieve the best end result possible. Mr. Hyderally comes highly recommended.”
    Christopher Power
  • “Ty is an exceptional attorney. Ty strives for and attains great results, in a fair and ethical manner. I value his professionalism, integrity and creativity. His ability to relate to the client and colleagues on various levels makes him very personable and a real asset.”
    Betty MacKnight
  • “Ty Hyderally is a light of hope at times when all seems grim and hopeless. A brilliant lawyer focused on labor and business law. Mr. Hyderally has the ability to combine his knowledge of the law with economic sense, strategic thinking and level headed decision making that more often than not results in a sensible conclusion that ultimately equates to a positive result for his client. Mr Hyderally is a pleasure to work with and a person you would want to have on your side of the table.”
    Richard Sapienza
  • “I have known Ty Hyderally and his firm for a number of years through our shared affiliation with the National Employment Lawyers Association. Ty has consistently impressed me both with his leadership qualities as well as the quality of workmanship that he and his firm generate. I have reviewed some of his firm's work product, including a sample initial client letter, which not only contained excellent advice to new clients but also included cutting edge information as to how to properly address social networking issues. Without hesitation, I would highly recommend Ty Hyderally.”
    Fred Shahrooz Scampato
  • “I would highly recommend the Law Office of Ty Hyderally to anyone who is in need of representation in a legal matter. Ty is one of the most knowledgeable and professional individuals that I have ever met. He not only protected my rights, but also added a personal touch in his approach which helped in relieving some of the stress of my situation. He is a hard working, kind hearted individual who goes out of his way to make your problem his and provides great results in the end.”
    Mike Fischer
  • “What impressed me most about Ty was that he delivered exactly what he promised! Very well versed in his area of practice, and extremely respected by his peers and colleagues, which put me at ease knowing he was representing me! Thank you Ty!”
    Dan Verdun
  • “I have been involved with Ty Hyderally both as an adversary in employment litigation, and when I have acted as a Court appointed Mediator in employment litigation matters in which Ty represented plaintiffs. In both types of situations, he has represented his clients very well, with an excellent command of the issues, and he has shown himself to be well-prepared, reliable, and sensitive to the concerns of his clients. He has conducted himself in a highly professional manner at all times. I have referred potential plaintiffs in employment matters to him (I represent management/defendants in such matters), since I believe he is highly qualified to consider their circumstances.”
    Wayne Positan
  • “Ty helped us in my small business with a very delicate matter involving what was once a very cherished employee who had made some bad choices. Because it was also emotional for me and my management team, we valued the professionalism and expertise that Ty offered. It was comforting to know we could rely on his service through that very challenging time and handle it with compassion and in compliance with the law. I would use him again and recommend him wholeheartedly!”
    Sherry Blair
  • “Ty is detail oriented yet moves quickly to get results. He contemplates each step and what action should be taken. Ty looks out for his client's best interest and is available to talk during evening hours when it is more appropriate to discuss options to take from home. Also, Ty is expedient in getting information needed in order to be cognizant of finances. I highly recommend Ty for legal services, especially with employment law.”
    Jeff Martens
  • “If the opportunity arises where a "name brand" attorney is needed, then Ty Hyderally is the only choice. Those in the know are aware that his record of success for his clients is outstanding and that his knowledge of his field is way above the rest”
    Jeff Baron
  • “Ty Hyderally is a lawyer's lawyer. I, also, used to handle plaintiffs' employment cases, but over time, those cases became more and more complicated and costly to pursue. They began to require the attention of a legal specialist. I decided against handling them personally. I was delighted when I met Ty. Now, I refer people to him all the time. I know that he will give the best advice and get the best results possible. I hope my employees don't have his card.”
  • “Many of my executive clients need to negotiate employment contracts or employment confilcts with their employer. As an executive coach, I support their efforts in all domains of their lives including recommending a lawyer when they have these employment contractual needs, I recommend Ty. Not once have I had any negative feedback from any client and all of my dealings with him have been very satisfying.”
    Dan McNeill
  • “Ty is a very knowledgeable Attorney, who has demonstrated a very proven track record in handling Employment cases. His knowledge and assertive approach have made him a very successful Attorney.”
    John Mcnamara
  • “I actually first worked with Ty at McKenna McIlwain LLP in 2008. Already I was impressed by his professionalism, client list and reputation. In 2011 I moved back to Montclair after a few years back home in Oregon. Ty was in need of a temporary administrative assistant and invited me to join his team at their new, independent location. I learned a great deal working with Hyderally & Associates, P.C. They have earned their reputation as the hardest hitting, best representation available for employment matters in New Jersey and New York alike. They are attentive, fair, and go every extra mile to ensure due diligence. I am proud to have them on my resume and am happy for the experience of being part of such a busy, professional and fast paced team.”
    Mary Otte
  • “Ty secured settlements that were nothing less than outstanding for my clients/contacts that I have referred to him. The quick speed with which he achieved his results was a huge bonus to those clients.”
    Robert Kornitzer
  • “I have worked with Ty for years through the ABA Labor & Employment Law Section Employment Rights and Responsibilities Committee. Ty is a go-to source for exemplary presentations on trial practice. A tireless advocate for employee rights, Ty is an accomplished trial attorney and someone we can rely on and have repeatedly relied upon in mock trial presentations at our yearly conferences.”
    John Beasley
  • “Ty is a regular lecturer at continuing education programs for lawyers. This means that because of his abilities he is called upon to enhance the skills of lawyers who are already experienced. He is well regarded as a trial lawyer and as a provider of legal advice to clients. I find that his companionable persona makes it easier to accept and understand his thoughts and advice.”
    Arnie Pedowitz
  • “I have known Ty Hyderally for several years and can only describe him as an expert in all areas of Employment law. I have referred several people to him in connection with their legal concerns and on each occasion I have been met with very positive feedback from these individuals and businesses. I have personally sought his counsel relating to a variety of business strategy issues within my own Insurance practice. With his substantial experience and proven track record, I wholeheartedly recommend his services.”
    Matthew McGovern, Esq.
  • “Ty has represented me numerous times and I have always come out with positive results. He keeps you well informed at each step of the process and always makes you feel confident and secure. I highly recommend his services.”
    John Scardino Jr
  • “Ty and I worked at the same law firm Friedman Siegelbaum. I found him a pleasure to work with and an able and diligent attorney.”
    Joel Glucksman
  • “If ever someone needs an exceptional employment litigator, Ty is the first person that I think of. Not only is he incredibly intelligent, but he is able to craft litigation strategies to maximize his client's outcome. He is a relentless litigator, with great passion for his work. If you hire Ty, you will not be disappointed.”
    Noah B. Rosenfarb, CPA, ABV, PFS, CDFA
  • “Ty has been invaluable to me as a business owner with employee issues. His advice has been on point and redirected me in the midst of employee concerns. I would highly recommend him and his firm whenever you have employment concerns.”
    Philip Seaver
  • “If you are looking for one of the best attorney's in an employment related issue, look no further. Ty is national recognized as one of the best employment attorney in the country and I am thrilled to see his practice continue to grow!”
    Jon Lamkin
  • “Ty, has been a great help to me in times of need when I needed his advice on some business matters. He is always available 24-7 to help out whether it is a small/large task. I would highly recommend him and his firm in any legal matter that he specializes in.”
    Eric Reinstein
  • “I have been working with Ty for over 4 years. Ty is one person I would say pays attention to detail, works hard for his clients and gets the job done on time and with amazing results. I have referred clients to him and he has always given them star treatment was always up front and honest with them and they are so pleased with their outcomes and glad I made the introduction.”
    Carmen Bucco
  • “Ty was an adversary and never lost sight of his client's needs in seeking a resolution. I would not hesitate to recommend for plaintiffs in employment work. He is methodical and tenacious but fair and amenable to a just resolution.”
    Roger Jacobs
  • “My Husband and I hired Ty at a time when we thought all was lost. We had a different attorney on our case that just gave up on us. My husband contacted Ty and once he heard our case he immediately took action. Our case was settled within 3 months of Ty taking over. His experience and knowledge of employment laws are not only impressive but it is why he is very successful. Ty is also very compassionate about his clients and communicated with us every step of the way. I would recommend Ty Hyderally to anyone and everyone who is need of a great attorney. You too!! Will be satisfied.”
    Cynthia Ortiz
  • “I have referred clients to Ty for employment issues. They told me that Ty was knowledgeable, courteous and promptly handled their matters. I can easily recommend Ty for people with difficult employment cases.”
    Eileen Kohutis
  • “Working with Ty on various projects has been fantastic. He and his team are thorough and they understand how to get the job done correctly. When you have the chance to work with Ty you understand the meaning of not taking no for an answer. They work to understand clients needs and the resolve the issues at hand. I have seen firsthand what Ty and his associates bring to the table and I would recommend them to anyone needing assistance with employment law.”
    Darren Magarro
  • “I have worked with Ty Hyderally on the executive board of the New Jersey chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association, and have discussed various employment matters with him. He is an excellent leader, always coming up with new ideas. Ty is truly an expert in employment law and I have found his analysis of both complex and simple matters to be dead on.”
    Leslie A. Farber
  • "Ty and I have worked together on a case getting ready for trial. We have also worked on trial advocacy presentations for the ABA. Ty is a very experienced litigator. He has great trial skills and connects well with his clients, the court and jury. He blends a sense of humor with knowledge of the law and facts. He is a very effective advocate.”
    Vanessa Kelly