In a ruling that could have far reaching implications in both unionized and non-union work environments, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) ruled that Home Depot violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it terminated an employee for refusing to remove a BLM logo from his company apron that violated Home Depot’s dress code prohibiting the display of causes or political messages unrelated to the workplace.

Although not the first time the Board has addressed the right of employees to don attire with BLM insignia, the ruling provides insight on the factors the Board will find sufficient to rule that employer dress codes must yield to employees’ expressions of support for social justice movements or other political causes.

The Prior Rulings

The duty to provide “reasonable accommodation” to an employee with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) poses significant challenges and legal risks to employers.  Determining when an employee’s request for a workplace accommodation is “reasonable” and thus must be accommodated, verses an “unreasonable” one that can be rejected by the employer, is often the subject of costly legal challenges.  A recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division shows how employers who implement an ongoing “interactive process” as well as offer reasonable accommodations along the way can successfully defend claims of disability discrimination.

The Facts: 

Plaintiff Robin Thomas was employed by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) as a secretarial assistant, a role requiring interaction with co-workers and access to her unit’s files.  In 2000, Thomas was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease that was adversely affected by cold and requested a work area without direct exposure to air conditioning.  The DOC accommodated that request.

Classifying workers as independent contractors can result in significant cost savings for employers, who are relieved of the obligation to offer company sponsored employee benefits (paid time off, health insurance contributions, etc.), to pay into state-sponsored employee benefit programs (e.g., paid sick leave, temporary disability, unemployment), and comply with other employment laws.  However, a recent decision from the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, illustrates that employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors rather than employees – thereby depriving them of the benefits of employee status – learn a tough lesson when workers challenge their employment status.

The Court Proceedings:

In Rodriguez v. De LaRosa (App. Div. 12/11/23), Barber shop owner Reynaldo De La Rosa hired Jonathan Rodriquez and other immigrants from the Dominican Republic to work six days a week as independent contractor barbers and to reside in housing he owned.  Rodriguez ultimately filed suit against De LaRosa in the Special Civil Part (a court with a jurisdictional cap on damages of $15,000) claiming he should have been classified as an employee and as required by New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law, paid overtime for all hours in excess of 40 hours in the preceding two-year period.  After a four-day trial, the lower court agreed that Rodriguez did not meet the requirements for classification as an independent contractor under the “ABC test” used to determine independent contractor status and awarded him $15,000 in unpaid overtime wages.

Effective March 11, 2024, the U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) will implement its final rule, Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, rescinding the 2021 Trump era Independent Contractor Rule that made it easier for employers to establish independent contractor status.  The final rule substantially mirrors the Department’s proposed rule issued in October 2022.

Reaffirmation of the Economic Realities Test:

As noted in the DOL’s accompanying FAQ found here, the final rule “continues to affirm that a worker is not an independent contractor if they are, as matter of economic reality, economically dependent on an employer for work.”  The final rule reverts back to the narrower “totality of the circumstances” economic reality test in effect prior to 2021 that applied the following six non-exhaustive factors to analyze employee or independent contractor status:

In a December 11, 2021 press release, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Plotkin and New Jersey Department of Labor Commissioner Robert Asaro-Angelo announced the filing of the first lawsuit under a 2021 law that enhances the State’s authority to curtail illegal misclassification of workers as independent contractors through actions such as direct suits in the Superior Court, work-stoppage orders and enhanced penalties.

“When employers unlawfully and callously toss their workers into the ‘independent contractor’ category they are not only depriving them of a steady paycheck, they are also stripping them of earned sick leave, workers compensation, minimum wage, and more,” said AG Plotkin.  “These are national, profitable corporations with deep pockets who are padding their profits with illegal labor schemes, and they seem to have no plans to stop this kind of behavior.”  Labor Commissioner Asaro-Angelo cautioned that companies profiting through misclassification “have been put on notice.  We are proud to have the strongest worker protection laws in the country, which also safeguard employers who play by the rules.  Misclassifying employees will not be profitable, nor overlooked.”

Under New Jersey law, workers are presumed to be employees unless the employer can establish the three criteria of what is commonly called the “ACBC test”: 1) the worker is largely free from the control or direction of the company over the performance of the work; 2) the type of work being performed by the worker is outside the company’s usual course of business, or is performed outside the company’s place of business; and 3) the worker has their own independent trade, job, profession or business.  Treating workers who do not meet these stringent criteria deprives them of the rights and benefits afforded to employees, including minimum wage, overtime, workers compensation benefits, temporary disability benefits, earned sick leave, job protected family leave, equal pay, unemployment payments, and statutory protection against unlawful discrimination.

In a retrenchment of the #MeToo movement’s maxim that “all women must be believed,” a federal jury in Philadelphia found that a University engaged in anti-male bias when it investigated female resident’s sexual assault claim and awarded the accused male employee a whopping $15 million dollars in damages.

The Facts:

The plaintiff, Dr. John Abraham, was the Director of the Musculoskeletal Oncology Center at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, a professor at Thomas Jefferson University and a partner in the Rothman Orthopedic Institute.  After a pool party hosted by Dr. Abraham at his home, he engaged in sexual activity with a subordinate female resident physician.  Dr. Abraham claims he then filed a report with the University that the resident had intoxicated him and aggressively pursued sex without Dr. Abraham’s consent.  Dr. Abraham maintains that this complaint was not acted upon.  Thereafter, the female resident filed a report with the University alleging she was raped by Dr. Abraham.