of anyone within the hierarchy to fulfill their respective roles with a collaborative enterprise creates a significant source of friction within the health care community. While physicians and other high-level providers may occasionally “talk down” to staff and subordinates, lower-level staff members may also behave in an insubordinate manner, exhibiting “pushback”, second-guessing or having curt, unprofessional attitudes. This may lead to a vicious cycle of acrimony, recriminations and often, investigation and discipline. At the end of the day however, leadership by example is crucial. As John F. Kennedy once said: “Civility is not a sign of weakness”. Angry or disrespectful comments, shouting, finger-pointing and slamming objects are unacceptable behavior from any professional in the health field and are no longer tolerated for any reason.Legal Standards for Workplace BehaviorWorkplace behavior in New Jersey is governed in part by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) [N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.]. The pivotal case concerning a hostile work environment under the NJLAD isLehmann v. Toys’R’Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (1993) where the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed alleged supervisor misconduct in the workplace. The Court in Lehmann found that while not all alleged harassment is actionable under NJLAD, harassment is actionable when an employer, supervisor or co-employee harasses another employee because the victim is in a legally protected category and the work environment becomes “hostile” or “abusive”. This is mostly based upon legally protected classes such as age, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation and disability (physical and mental). However, providers should be aware that hospital medical staff, or a state licensing board, does not have to meet this legal standard to discipline disruptive behavior in the clinical workplace. Any health care professional considered by their co-workers and leadership to

The judge further noted that, although the Legislature had most recently amended Section 40 in 2007, and "specifically 'examined exemptible fees and costs,'" it had declined to alter the language in Section 40. The appellate division affirmed.Subsequently, in Richter, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the claimant's recovery from her employer under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. Richter was a diabetic teacher who fell and struck her head when she fainted, and sought workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that she was injured due to being unable to eat as a result of her schedule.

Under the bill, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1, et seq., will be amended to include the following new provisions, among others:Mandatory anti-discrimination policies;Compulsory anti-discrimination training;Reporting of internal complaints (e.g., discrimination, harassment, and retaliation) to the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR);Expansion of protections to additional classifications of individuals or workers (e.g., independent contractors, interns, and domestic service workers);Codification of harassment and perceived disability as claims; andElimination or limitation of previously available defenses.The bill also includes a section on discoverability of prior complaints of harassment or other unlawful discriminatory practices during litigation.While the bill is in the Senate Labor Committee, Governor Phil Murphy has announced his own plan to overhaul the NJLAD as part of his commitment “to bring sweeping changes to New Jersey’s workplace culture.”

The Court’s unanimous opinion in that case, written by Justice Schreiber, has been cited in 178 court decisions since, according to a computer search.This was an employment discrimination case under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”). Plaintiff Bonnie Goodman answered an advertisement by defendant that sought to hire a field representative.

Div. 2020). Reversing a summary judgment for defendant in this retaliatory discharge action under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”), Judge Vernoia’s opinion held that plaintiff had offered “sufficient evidence establishing the good faith and reasonable basis prerequisite for a LAD retaliatory discharge claim.” The case turned on the proper interpretation of the standards of Carmona v. Resorts Int’l Hotel, Inc., 189 N.J. 354 (2007), on which the Law Division had relied.

Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2020). In this case, as discussed here, the Appellate Division reversed a trial level decision that had granted dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”), at the threshold. Today, in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that ruling substantially for the reasons offered by the Appellate Division.The Court stated its agreement with the Appellate Division’s ruling that “there is no conflict” between the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 et seq., and the LAD.

On February 18, 2020, Governor Phil Murphy proposed a host of legislative changes to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) (N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq.). According to the governor, the changes aim “to clarify legal grey areas” and would (1) codify what alleged misconduct constitutes hostile work environment harassment; (2) require employers to provide anti-harassment, -discrimination, and -retaliation policies and training to employees; (3) require employees to keep detailed internal-complaint records; (4) require employees to report information about those complaints to the Division on Civil Rights (DCR); (5) bring domestic workers and interns under the protection of the NJLAD; and (6) increase the statute of limitations for most NJLAD claims to three years.Even though the bill’s content may change, employers may want to watch its progress.

See, Brenner v. Berkowitz, 134 N.J. 488 (1993); N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7(c); N.J.S.A. 42:2C-48(5).Further, New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) prohibits intentional discrimination based upon race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), marital status, domestic partnership, or civil union status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression, military service, or mental or physical disability. See, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et. seq.When enacting the LAD, the New Jersey Legislature mandated that Courts broadly and liberally construe the law because they recognized that discrimination causes personal hardships and is against public policy. N.J.S.A. 10:5-3.

Acting on plaintiffs’ appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants Borough and its Tax Collector, reversed the summary judgment for the Tax Collector but affirmed it as to the Borough, holding that the Borough was not responsible for the actions of the Collector. Finally, Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ., presents this question: “Is an employee alleging discrimination for failure to accommodate a disability, pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, required to show an adverse employment action; and is this employee’s claim barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146?” The Appellate Division reversed the Law Division’s grant of summary judgment to defendants.

A two-judge Appellate Division panel affirmed in an unpublished opinion.The question presented in Oasis Therapeutic Life Centers, Inc. v. Wade is “Did plaintiff’s complaint, which alleged that defendants interfered with plaintiff’s efforts to purchase a property for use as a group home for individuals with autism, plead an actionable claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49?” A published opinion of a three-judge Appellate Division panel, reported at 457 N.J. Super. 218 (App.