Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s lead in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the appellate court in New Jersey has ruled that plaintiffs suing for wage discrimination in New Jersey cannot rely on the “continuous trigger” theory, by which each paycheck restarts the running of the statute of limitations.

Best v. C&M Door Controls, Inc., 2009 N.J. LEXIS 1000 (2009)

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently held that a defendant/employer cannot be awarded attorney’s fees under New Jersey Court Rule 4:58 (the offer-of-judgment rule) in a case involving the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) and the Prevailing Wage Act (“PWA”), however a plaintiff/employee’s rejection of a reasonable settlement offer may be taken into consideration in determining the amount of attorney’s fee’s to be warded to a prevailing employee.

Kelly v. Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 22352 (3d Cir. Oct. 9, 2009)

Absent evidence that age was a “but-for” factor in an employer’s decision to terminate an employee, the mere fact that age may have been a secondary consideration is insufficient to sustain a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) as a matter of law.

14 Penn Plaza LLC Et Al., v. Steven Pyett Et Al., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 2497

In this 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court, with Justice Thomas writing for the majority, held that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that required the arbitration of discrimination claims brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) was enforceable against individual union members.

Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7169 (3rd Cir. Apr. 7, 2009)

In Webb, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that a police officer’s request to wear religious garb with her uniform could not be reasonably accommodated without imposing an undue burden upon the City of Philadelphia.  Kimberlie Webb, a Muslim police officer employed by the City of Philadelphia, filed a lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia on October 5, 2005.  The suit asserted three causes of action under Title VII, i.e., religious discrimination, retaliation/hostile work environment, and sex discrimination, and one cause of action under the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act (RFPA), 71 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2401.