By Ty Hyderally, Esq. and Kenny Delgado

October 6, 2025

When looking for justice from workplace discrimination, it is not always clear which way to look for those protections. The United States’ system of both federal courts and state courts can be confusing to navigate with regard to where do you pursue your action. Interwoven in that system is a plethora of administrative agencies, such as the Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Division of Civil Rights, the Office of Administrative Law, etc., that must be used for certain types of cases or may be a mandatory filing precursor, before you can file your action in the courts.

Earlier this year, the Third District Court of New Jersey decided that a plaintiff failed to seek the proper relief of justice when he filed for action under New Jersey state law rather than filing with the National Labor Relations Board. Davis v. Benihana, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 3d 524 (D.N.J. 2025).

The Case:

In Davis v. Benihana, the Plaintiff was seeking relief for unjust termination after he had complained about his pay to a manager and proceeded to speak to his coworkers about their pay rate. The manager then called a meeting with his chefs and demanded that they not discuss pay at their workplace. The Plaintiff protested saying that they could not be punished for discussing their pay. Plaintiff was terminated thereafter.

Following his termination the Plaintiff sued under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) alleging retaliation for protected actions.  The Plaintiff filed his case in New Jersey State Court.  The Defendants removed the case to Federal Court claiming that the case should be properly litigated in Federal Court.  The removal action was successful.

Following this removal, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the action claiming that this matter should have been filed before the National Labor Relations Board as opposed to with the Courts.  The Federal Court agreed. The Court held that Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act creates exclusive jurisdiction in matters of “protected activities.” These activities include speaking about wages. The Court did acknowledge that CEPA also features protections for these types of communications.  However, the Court found that if it allowed Plaintiff to pursue a CEPA action, it would interfere and overlap with the protections offered to the Plaintiff under the NLRA.  The Court then held that due to this overlap, the NLRA preempts CEPA, and thus the NLRA provided the appropriate remedy as opposed to pursuing a CEPA action.  Thus, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and ruled that the Plaintiff should pursue his matter before the NLRB.

The Court in Davis provides guidance on the extent to which federal courts will apply NJ state laws and the limits those statutes have in the face of administrative regulation. The most important part of the case for those experiencing potential employer retaliation is knowing where to seek relief. In this matter, the Court ruled that the NLRA offered protections that preempted New Jersey state law.

The proper venue for navigating these claims is a tricky process.  Making a misstep could result in wasting money on legal fees and the passage of a great deal of time.  During this misstep, documents could be spoliated and memories faded.  Thus, it is important to try to avoid making mistakes.  If you find yourself lost unsure of the proper way to proceed in your search for workplace justice or if you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek out an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-two (22) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does 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 about your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.