Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Woods-Pirozzi v. Nabisco Foodsgreen2 sentences2024But we didn't include membership in a protected class as an element of a LAD retaliation claim in Woods-Pirozzi, 290 N.J. 2024In dicta, the Court included "plaintiff was in a protected class" as an element of an LAD retaliation claim, citing Woods-Pirozzi, 290 N.J. | 2 | 3 |
Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc.green2 sentences2021To establish an LAD retaliation claim, plaintiffs must show: "(1) they engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter their employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) their participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation." Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 (1995). 2020See generally Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 (1995) (defining the elements of a LAD-retaliation claim). | 2 | 3 |
Mancini v. Township of Teaneckgreen2 sentences2026Some factors used in determining whether an adverse employment action has taken place include: "[T]he employee's loss of status, a clouding of job responsibilities, diminution in authority, disadvantageous transfers or assignments, and toleration of harassment by other employees." Ibid. "[A]ssignment to different or less desirable tasks can be sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action . . . ." Ibid. 2026As such, it is permissible to "look[] for guidance to federal law dealing with Title VII and Civil Rights legislation to determine what constitute[s] an adverse employment decision in the context of a LAD retaliation claim." Ibid. | 1 | 3 |
Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber Inc.green2 sentences2020In Tartaglia, the Court described the holding in Carmona as a "refine[ment]" of the elements of a LAD-retaliation claim that added a "prerequisite": "a plaintiff must . . . bear the burden of proving that he or she had a good faith, reasonable basis for complaining about the workplace behavior." Tartaglia, 197 N.J. at 125 . 2020In Tartaglia, the Court described the holding in Carmona as a "refine[ment]" of the elements of a LAD-retaliation claim that added a "prerequisite": "a plaintiff must . . . bear the burden of proving that he or she had a good faith, reasonable basis for complaining about the workplace behavior." Tartaglia, 197 N.J. at 125 . | 1 | 2 |
Battaglia v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green2 sentences2024Super. at 274 , and the Court did not include it as an element of the claim in Battaglia, A-3113-22 14 214 N.J. at 547 , which was decided three years after Victor and authored by the same member of the Court. 2020To sustain his burden of proving an LAD retaliation claim pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d), plaintiff was required to prove he "'engaged in a protected activity known to the [BOE,]' [he] was 'subjected to an adverse employment decision[,]' and there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action." Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 214 N.J. 518, 547 (2013) (quoting Woods-Pirozzi v. Nabisco Foods, 290 N.J. | 1 | 2 |
Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ.green1 sentence2025New Jersey has been guided by the federal courts' interpretation of Title VII and civil rights legislation to decide what constitutes an adverse employment decision with regards to a LAD retaliation claim." Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ., 459 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Victor v. Stategreen1 sentence2025The prima facie elements are: "(1) plaintiff was in a protected class; (2) plaintiff engaged in protected activity known to the employer; (3) plaintiff was thereafter subjected to an adverse employment consequence; and (4) that there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment consequence." Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383, 409 (citing Woods-Pirozzi v. Nabisco Foods, 290 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Gertrude W. Abramson v. William Paterson College of New Jerseygreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Abramson v. William Paterson College, 260 F. 3d 265 (3d Cir. 2001); Mancuso v. City of Atlantic City, 193 F.Supp. 2d 789, 811 (D.N.J.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Mancuso v. City of Atlantic Citygreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Abramson v. William Paterson College, 260 F. 3d 265 (3d Cir. 2001); Mancuso v. City of Atlantic City, 193 F.Supp. 2d 789, 811 (D.N.J.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Companygreen1 sentence2002As the judge recognized, citing Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co., 108 F. 3d 462, 466 (2d Cir.1997), "`[b]ecause there are no bright-line rules, courts must pore over each case to determine whether the challenged employment action reaches the level of `adverse'.'" He properly looked for guidance to federal law dealing with Title VII and Civil Rights legislation to determine what constituted an adverse employment decision in the context of a LAD retaliation claim, considering factors such as the employee's loss of status, a clouding of job responsibilities, diminution in authority, disadvantageou | 1 | 1 |
Tonya J. WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appelleegreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Wideman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 141 F. 3d 1453, 1456 (11th Cir.1998); Wyatt v. City of Boston, 35 F. 3d 13, 15-16 (1st Cir.1994); Collins v. State of Illinois, 830 F. 2d 692, 703-04 (7th Cir.1987). | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. State of Illinoisgreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Wideman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 141 F. 3d 1453, 1456 (11th Cir.1998); Wyatt v. City of Boston, 35 F. 3d 13, 15-16 (1st Cir.1994); Collins v. State of Illinois, 830 F. 2d 692, 703-04 (7th Cir.1987). | 1 | 1 |
Wyatt v. City of Bostongreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Wideman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 141 F. 3d 1453, 1456 (11th Cir.1998); Wyatt v. City of Boston, 35 F. 3d 13, 15-16 (1st Cir.1994); Collins v. State of Illinois, 830 F. 2d 692, 703-04 (7th Cir.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nicole Prager v. Joyce Honda, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 141 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Young v. Schering Corp.
green
1 sentence2025See Tartaglia, 197 N.J. at 103 ; Young, 275 N.J. Super. at 238 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Carmona v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020A-3846-18T1 8 In Carmona, the Court further defined the elements of a LAD-retaliation claim. 189 N.J. at 369-71 . 2020In part, defendant also argued plaintiff A-3846-18T1 5 lacked evidence establishing the prerequisite to a LAD-retaliation claim defined by our Supreme Court in Carmona; that plaintiff had a reasonable and good faith belief in the underlying discrimination complaint that triggered the alleged retaliatory actions. 189 N.J. at 373 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Viscik v. Fowler Equipment Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2007As a result, we must also conclude that “the jury could have come to a different result had it been correctly instructed.” Ibid. 2007As a result, we must also conclude that "the jury could have come to a different result had it been correctly instructed." Ibid. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 187 n. 1, 125 S.Ct. at 1512 n. 1, 161 L.Ed.2d at 380 n. 1 (citing cases). 5 We recognize this requirement as an element of plaintiffs required proofs in a LAD-retaliation claim because its absence may well lead to abuse. 2007Id. at 187 n. 1, 125 S.Ct. at 1512 n. 1, 161 L.Ed.2d at 380 n. 1 (citing cases). 5 We recognize this requirement as an element of plaintiffs required proofs in a LAD-retaliation claim because its absence may well lead to abuse. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hospitals, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005Our Supreme Court has identified the required elements of an LAD retaliation claim as follows: To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory retaliation, plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) they engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter their employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) their participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation. [ Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 , 660 A. 2d 505 (1995)(citing Jamison v. Rockaway Township Bd. of Educ., 242 N.J.Super. 436, 445 , 577 A. 2d 177 (App.Div.1990); Wrighten v. *1188 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Jamison v. Rockaway Tp. Bd. of Educ.
green
2 sentences2005Our Supreme Court has identified the required elements of an LAD retaliation claim as follows: To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory retaliation, plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) they engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter their employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) their participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation. [ Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 , 660 A. 2d 505 (1995)(citing Jamison v. Rockaway Township Bd. of Educ., 242 N.J.Super. 436, 445 , 577 A. 2d 177 (App.Div.1990); Wrighten v. *1188 2005Our Supreme Court has identified the required elements of an LAD retaliation claim as follows: To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory retaliation, plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) they engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter their employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) their participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation. [ Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 , 660 A. 2d 505 (1995)(citing Jamison v. Rockaway Township Bd. of Educ., 242 N.J.Super. 436, 445 , 577 A. 2d 177 (App.Div.1990); Wrighten v. *1188 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.