2.24 WAGE DISPARITY UNDER THE NJLAD Model Jury charge NJ

 Model Jury charge 2.24 WAGE DISPARITY UNDER THE NJLAD   NJ

1. Substantially Equal Jobs 

Plaintiff has asserted that her1 employer violated the [NJLAD/Equal Pay Act] by paying her lower wage than those paid to men for equal work. 

[Charge where applicable: The Equal Pay Act states: 

No employer having employees subject to any provision of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work.2 

In order to establish an initial case of wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, a woman must show that: 

a. The work she did was substantially equal to that performed by male employees; and 

b. She received a different rate of pay for this substantially equal work.] 

1Note that the EPA applies only to wage disparity as between the sexes. See Grigoletti v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 118 N.J. 89, 100 (1990). 

229 U.S.C. '206(d)(1). CHARGE 2.24 — Page 2 of 3 

3See Brobst v. Columbus Services International, 824 F. 2d 271, 174 (3d Cir. 1987), citing Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195 (1974), citing 29 U.S.A. §206(d)(1). 

4The McDonnell-Douglas methodology is not utilized in an EPA claim or in an NJLAD claim based on substantially equal jobs. See Grigoletti at 100-110. 

I charge you that substantially equal work is defined by the same statute as work “on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility an which are performed under similar working conditions.”3 

If a plaintiff establishes these two elements by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant employer has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the wage disparity is the result of one of four facts: 

a. A bona fide seniority system, or 

b. a merit system, or 

c. a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or 

d. a differential based on any factor other than sex. 

If defendant proves one of these factors by a preponderance of the evidence, you must find in favor of defendant.4 CHARGE 2.24 — Page 3 of 3 

5For a discussion of the differences between the proofs required in a Title VII (and by implication, on NJLAD) based wage disparity claim and those required in a Equal Pay Act Claim, see Grigoletti v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 118 N.J. 89, 100-110 (1990). 

6This charge applies to claims of "similar jobs"; the charge relating to the EPA applies to claims of "substantially equal" jobs. 

2. Similar Jobs5 

In order to establish an initial case of wage disparity or discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: 

a. He/She is a member of a protected class; 

b. his/her job was similar to the job of other persons who were not members of a protected class6; and 

c. he/she received lower wages than the persons who were not members of a protected class. 

It is plaintiff's burden to prove each of these three elements by a preponderance of the evidence. 

2.23 DISCRIMINATORY LAYOFF OR REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF) Model Jury charge NJ

Model Jury charge  2.23 DISCRIMINATORY LAYOFF OR REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF)   NJ

Plaintiff has contended that the layoff or reduction in force at [employer's name] was conducted in a discriminatory manner. In order to establish an initial case that a layoff was discriminatory, a plaintiff must show that: 

1. He/She is a member of a protected class; and 

2. He/She was laid off while other not in the protected class were treated favorably.1 

It is plaintiff's burden to prove both of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence. 

1Massarsky v. General Motors Corp., 706 F. 2d 111 (3d Cir.), cert. den., 464 U.S. 937 (1983).  

2.22A LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY CLAIMS Model Jury charge NJ

Model Jury charge  2.22A LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY CLAIMS  NJ

If you find that defendant [employer] has unlawfully discriminated [and/or retaliated] against plaintiff, you must then consider whether defendant [individual] should be held individually and personally responsible for aiding and abetting that discrimination [and/or retaliation].1 To hold defendant [individual] liable, plaintiff must show that (1) defendant [individual] was generally aware of his/her role in the overall illegal, unlawful, or tortious activity at the time that he/she provided the assistance, and (2) defendant [individual] knowingly and substantially assisted defendant [employer] in discriminating [and/or retaliating] against plaintiff. You may consider the following five factors when deciding whether defendant [individual] knowingly and substantially assisted defendant [employer]’s discrimination [and/or retaliation] against plaintiff: (1) the nature of the wrongful conduct encouraged; (2) the amount of assistance defendant [individual] provided to defendant [employer]; (3) whether defendant [individual] was present at the time that the discrimination [and/or retaliation] occurred; (4) defendant [individual]’s relationship to anyone else involved in the discrimination [and/or 

1 It remains unsettled whether a non-supervisory employee may be held individually liable for aiding and abetting the discrimination of his/her employer. See Cicchetti v. Morris County Sheriff’s Office, 194 N.J. 563 (2008); Herman v. Coastal Corp., 348 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2002). CHARGE 2.22A — Page 2 of 2 

retaliation]; and (5) defendant [individual]’s state of mind. Defendant [individual]’s failure to act so as to protect plaintiff or failure to respond effectively to plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination is insufficient to conclude that defendant [individual] provided substantial assistance to defendant [employer] so as to hold defendant [individual] personally liable. 

Cases: 

Cicchetti v. Morris County Sheriff’s Office, supra; Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70 (2004); Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dep’t, 174 F.3d 95 (3d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1074, 120 S.Ct. 786, 145 L.Ed. 2d 663 (2000). 

2.22 UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES UNDER THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) — RETALIATION (N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d))Model Jury charge NJ

 Model Jury charge  2.22 UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES UNDER THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) — RETALIATION (N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d))  NJ

The Law Against Discrimination (LAD) has a specific subsection, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d)1, addressing employer retaliation against employees for engaging in “protected” activity. It first identifies two categories of employee activity that are “protected” under the Law: 

(1) 

opposing practices or acts that are unlawful under the LAD, i.e., complaining about, or protesting against, discrimination in the workplace; 2 

(2) 

filing a complaint or testifying or assisting in any proceeding under this act;3 

In addition, this section of the LAD provides that it is unlawful for an employer “to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this act.” N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d). 

The court should be aware that the jury charge to be given in a retaliation case varies depending on the type of “protected activity” in which the employee claims to have engaged. Those differences are explained below in the course of discussing the text of the Charge. 

1 N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d) provides in full as follows: “[It is unlawful] [f]or any person to take reprisals against any person because that person has opposed any practices or acts forbidden under this act or because that person has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this act or to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this act.” 

2 These cases are often referred to as “opposition” cases. 

3 These cases are often referred to as “participation” cases. CHARGE 2.22 — Page 2 of 8 

4 This issue is not charged to the jury if the court has already decided it as a matter of law or the parties have stipulated to it. 

5 See footnote 4. 

Finally, as is the case when charging the jury under Charge 2.21 (Disparate Treatment), the court should not charge the prima facie elements of the plaintiff’s case, unless those elements remain at issue at the time of trial, having not already been decided as a result of motion practice either at the summary judgment stage or at the close of evidence at trial, or having not been stipulated to by the parties. For a full discussion of when and why the prima facie elements should not be charged to the jury, see the Introductory Note to the Court in Charge 2.21. 

Plaintiff claims that the defendant retaliated against him/her because of [insert alleged LAD protected activity]. Defendant denies these allegations and instead maintains that it [insert alleged retaliatory action] because [insert defendant’s explanation, such as “plaintiff’s job performance was inadequate”, “plaintiff’s job was eliminated”, etc.]. 

To prevail on his/her claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

First: The plaintiff [insert alleged LAD protected activity];4 

Second: The plaintiff was subjected to retaliation at the time, or after, the protected conduct took place.5 

Third: There was a causal connection between [insert alleged retaliatory action] and [insert alleged LAD protected activity], sufficient to show that CHARGE 2.22 — Page 3 of 8 

6 See Carmona v. Resorts Int’l Hotel, Inc., 189 N.J. 354, 373 (2007). 

plaintiff’s [insert alleged LAD protected activity] played a role in the decision and made an actual difference in the defendant’s decision to [insert alleged retaliatory action]. 

I will now discuss each of these three elements with you in more detail: 

(1) The “Protected Activity” Element of Plaintiff’s Case: 

NOTE TO COURT 

If the first element of the plaintiff’s case -- whether the plaintiff engaged in protected activity -- remains at issue, the Court should charge the jury as follows, depending on whether the case is an “opposition” case, or a “participation” case. 

For “opposition” cases, where plaintiff alleges he/she complained to his/her employer about discrimination, and that fact remains at issue in the case, charge the following: 

To establish this first element of his/her case, the plaintiff need not prove the merits of his/her [describe the plaintiff’s protected activity], but only that, in doing so, he/she was acting under a good faith and reasonable belief6 that the [plaintiff’s or insert someone else’s name] right to be free from discrimination on the basis of [insert the legally protected characteristic] was violated. 

For “participation” cases, where the plaintiff alleges he/she filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding within the meaning of the LAD, and that fact remains at issue in the case, charge the following: CHARGE 2.22 — Page 4 of 8 

7 See Nardello v. Twp. of Voorhees, 377 N.J. Super. 428, 433-436 (App. Div. 2005); Green v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., 177 N.J. 434, 448 (2003). 

To establish this first element of his/her case, the plaintiff must prove that he/she filed a complaint or testified or assisted in a proceeding [such as a proceeding before the Division on Civil Rights or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], in which it was alleged that his/her employer discriminated against a person. 

(2) The “Retaliation” (“Adverse Action”) Element of Plaintiff’s Case: 

NOTE TO COURT 

If the second element of the plaintiff’s case -- whether defendant took an adverse action against plaintiff -- remains at issue, the court should charge the jury as follows: 

To establish the second element, the plaintiff must show that he/she was subjected to retaliation by his/her employer. The term retaliation can include, but is not limited to, being discharged, demoted, not hired, not promoted or disciplined. In addition, many separate but relatively minor instances of behavior directed against the plaintiff may combine to make up a pattern of retaliatory behavior.7 CHARGE 2.22 — Page 5 of 8 

8 See Donofry v. Autotote Systems, Inc., 350 N.J. Super. 276, 295 (App. Div. 2001); see also Charge 2.21 for an alternate formulation to be used with the jury. 

(3) 

The “Causal Connection” Element of Plaintiff’s Case: 

The third and final element is whether the plaintiff can prove the existence of a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged retaliation by his/her employer. Ultimately, in considering this third element of the plaintiff’s case, you must decide whether the plaintiff’s [insert alleged LAD protected activity] played a role in and made an actual difference in the defendant's decision8 to [insert alleged retaliation action]. It is the plaintiff’s burden to prove that it is more likely than not that, the defendant retaliated against the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s [insert alleged LAD protected activity]. That is the ultimate issue you must decide: did the defendant [insert alleged retaliatory action] because of the plaintiff’s [insert alleged LAD protected activity]. The plaintiff may prove this directly, by proving that a retaliatory reason more likely than not motivated the defendant’s action, or indirectly, by proving that the defendant’s stated reason for its action is not the real reason for its action. 

You may find that the defendant had more than one reason or motivation for its actions. For example, you may find that the defendant was motivated both by the plaintiff’s [insert alleged LAD protected activity] and by other, non-retaliatory factors, such as the plaintiff’s job performance. To prevail, the plaintiff is not CHARGE 2.22 — Page 6 of 8 

9 See Charge 2.21 and cases cited therein at fn. 2; see also Donofry, supra, 350 N.J. Super. at 296 (“Plaintiff need not prove that his whistle-blowing activity was the only factor in the decision to fire him.”); Kolb v. Burns, 320 N.J. Super. 467, 479 (App. Div. 1999) (burden on plaintiff is to show “retaliatory discrimination was more likely than not a determinative factor in the decision”). 

10 The court may refer to specific types of indirect evidence presented during the trial, such as prior conduct and/or comments of the parties, etc. 

required to prove that his/her [insert alleged LAD protected activity] was the only reason or motivation for the defendant’s actions. Rather, the plaintiff must only prove that his/her [insert alleged LAD protected activity] played a role in the decision and that it made an actual difference in the defendant’s decision.9 If you find that the plaintiff’s [insert alleged LAD protected activity] did make an actual difference in the defendant’s decision, then you must enter judgment for the plaintiff. If, however, you find that the defendant would have made the same decision regardless of the plaintiff’s [insert alleged LAD protected activity], then you must enter judgment for the defendant. 

Because direct proof of intentional retaliation is often not available, the plaintiff is allowed to prove retaliation by circumstantial evidence. In that regard, you are to evaluate whatever indirect evidence of retaliation that you find was presented during the trial.10 

One kind of circumstantial evidence can involve the timing of events, i.e., whether the defendant’s action followed shortly after the defendant became aware CHARGE 2.22 — Page 7 of 8 

of the plaintiff’s [insert alleged LAD protected activity]. While such timing may be evidence of retaliation, it may also be simply coincidental – that is for you to decide. 

Another kind of circumstantial evidence might involve evidence that the defendant became antagonistic or otherwise changed his/her demeanor toward the plaintiff after the defendant became aware of the plaintiff’s protected activity. But again, this may be evidence of retaliation, or it may have no relationship to retaliation at all, but it is for you to decide. 

In addition, you should consider whether the explanation given by the defendant for his/her action was the real reason for his/her actions. If you don’t believe the reason given by the defendant is the real reason the defendant [insert alleged retaliatory action] you may, but are not required to, find that the plaintiff has proven his/her case of retaliation. You are permitted to do so because, if you find the defendant has not told the truth about why it acted, you may conclude that it is hiding the retaliation. However, while you are permitted to find retaliation based upon your disbelief of the defendant’s stated reasons, you are not required to do so. This is because you may conclude that the defendant’s stated reason is not the real reason, but that the real reason is something other than illegal retaliation. 

The plaintiff at all times bears the ultimate burden of proving to you that it is more likely than not that the defendant engaged in intentional retaliation. To CHARGE 2.22 — Page 8 of 8 

11 The court should refer to any other general instructions where appropriate. 

decide whether the plaintiff has proven intentional retaliation, you should consider all of the evidence presented by the parties, using the guidelines I gave in the beginning of my instructions regarding evaluating evidence generally, such as weighing the credibility of witnesses.11 Keep in mind that in reaching your determination of whether the defendant engaged in intentional retaliation, you are instructed that the defendant’s actions and business practices need not be fair, wise, reasonable, moral or even right, so long as the plaintiff’s [insert alleged LAD protected activity] did not play a role and make an actual difference in the defendant’s decision to [insert alleged retaliatory action]. 

I remind you that the ultimate issue you must decide is whether the defendant engaged in illegal retaliation against the plaintiff by [insert alleged retaliatory action], and that the plaintiff has the burden to prove that retaliation occurred.