17 Academy Street, Suite 1010, Newark, NJ 07102 • (973) 242-3636 • intake@thedwyerlawfirm.com

Precedent Setting Cases

Our obligation to represent our clients zealously often leads us to "push the envelope" to address cutting edge legal issues in precedent setting cases. As a result, some of our cases result in published decisions on legal questions of first impression. Examples of these cases in the field of employment law include:

Fasano v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (PDF), 457 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2006). This case addressed whether a Federal Reserve Bank can be subjected to New Jersey's state anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation statutes.
Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics, 168 N.J. 124 (2001). In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an employee was entitled to litigate his discrimination claim, rather than be forced to arbitrate the claim out of court, notwithstanding an arbitration clause in his employment contract.
Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hospital, 158 N.J. 404 (1999). In a precedent setting case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the whistleblower statute protects an employee who complains about the wrongful conduct of a co-worker.
Chasin v. Montclair State University, 159 N.J. 418 (1999). This case addressed the scope of indemnification provisions for State employees.
Kluczyk v. Tropicana Products, Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 479 (App. Div. 2004). In this case, the Appellate Division affirmed a verdict for an employee in a retaliation case arising out of same-sex sexual harassment. On an issue of first impression, the Court held that an employer was not protected against punitive damages merely because it relied on the advice of its attorneys.
Wazeerud-Din v. Goodwill Home & Missions, 325 N.J. Super. 3 (App. Div. 1999). In a matter of first impression, this case decided whether the law banning discrimination in public accommodations could be applied to a "religious" drug treatment program.
Kim v. Monmouth College (PDF), 320 N.J. Super. 157 (Law Div. 1999). In another case of first impression in New Jersey, the Court held that an employee did not have to pay payroll taxes on a jury verdict for back wages.