Latest news with #NewJerseyLawAgainstDiscrimination
New York Post
18-07-2025
- Sport
- New York Post
Transgender runner sues Princeton for keeping her out of women's race
Transgender runner Sadie Schreiner is suing Princeton University after the school allegedly excluded the athlete from a May 3 women's race. Schreiner's lawsuit claimed the athlete attempted to participate in the women's 200-meter sprint at the Larry Ellis Invitational as one of the 141 participants unattached to a university or club. The suit alleges officials told Schreiner the athlete could not participate 15 minutes before the race began. Advertisement 'I do not want to assume, but you are transgender,' a Princeton official allegedly told Schreiner, per the complaint. 'The actions of the two Princeton officials were in blatant and willful disregard of Sadie's rights based on Sadie's rights as a transgender woman under controlling New Jersey law, thereby causing Sadie Shreiner to foreseeable emotional and physical harm,' the lawsuit argued. Schreiner alleges the university violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which designates 'gender identity or expression' as a protected status. Fox News Digital has reached out to Princeton University for a response. Advertisement Schreiner previously competed for Rochester Institute of Technology's (RIT) women's track and field team and gained national notoriety for dominating female opponents and frequent social media videos boasting about it as an openly transgender competitor. However, Schreiner was ruled ineligible to compete for RIT after the NCAA revised its gender eligibility policy Feb. 6, one day after President Donald Trump signed the 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports' executive order on Feb. 5. 3 Sadie Schreiner races to qualify in the 400m race at the 2024 NCAA DIII outdoor track and field championships The Washington Post via Getty Im RIT provided a statement to Fox News Digital confirming this on Feb. 12. Advertisement 'We continue to follow the NCAA participation policy for transgender student-athletes following the Trump administration's executive order. Sadie is not participating in the next meet,' the statement said. Schreiner then competed at the USA Track & Field Open Masters Championships on March 1. There, Schreiner competed in the women's 400-meter dash and 200-meter dash, taking first place in both events. Schreiner won the 400-meter dash by default, as the other participants in the event, Anna Vidolova and Amaris Hiatt, had no recorded times and were listed as DNS (did not start). Advertisement 3 Sadie Schreiner wears a transgender flag in her hair on the awards stand after finishing 3rd in the finals of the 200m race at the 2024 NCAA DIII outdoor track and field championships. The Washington Post via Getty Im In the 200-meter dash, Schreiner defeated 14-year-old runner-up Zwange Edwards, 16-year-old third-place finisher Zariah Hargrove, 15-year-old Leah Walker and 18-year-old Ainsley Rausch. That event also had multiple participants listed as DNS, including 18-year-old Jordan Carr, 46-year-old Amanda Taylor, Vidolova again and 16-year-old Paula Damiens. However, weeks after that, Schreiner posted an Instagram video claiming to have likely competed in Schreiner's last organized track meet in the U.S. after a USATF event in Maine. 'I very likely just ran what will be my last meet in the United States,' Schreiner said, later adding, 'I will find a way to keep competing, but I doubt that will be in the United States.' Schreiner said USATF changed its policy on transgender eligibility from the one used by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which allows biological males to compete in the women's category, to the one used by World Athletics, which bans any athlete who has undergone male puberty from competing as a woman. The USATF's official transgender eligibility policy does now reference the World Athletics guidelines on its official webpage. It previously referenced the IOCs policy, as seen in an archive via Wayback Machine. 3 Sadie Schreiner puts a transgender flag in her hair. The Washington Post via Getty Im Schreiner has been a controversial figure in women's track and field in the past year, especially after an appearance at the 2024 NCAA Division III Outdoor Track & Field Championships in May. Earlier that month, Schreiner competed at the Liberty League Championship and won both the women's 200- and 400-meter, breaking the 400-meter record in the process. Schreiner would have finished last by more than two seconds in the men's competition. Advertisement In late January, Schreiner bragged after winning an event against female opponents. 'Not the race I was looking for at all this week, my spikes nearly fell off on the turn and with a poor start my time wasn't nearly what I wanted,' the runner wrote in an Instagram post. 'The good news is that the season just started, and I'm going to leave everything on the track at nationals,' Schreiner added with a transgender pride flag emoji. Advertisement On Jan. 17, Schreiner took first place in the 200- and 400-meter dashes at the Brockport Friday Night Rust Buster, taking top spots over two female seniors. In the 200-meter dash, Schreiner beat RIT teammate Caroline Hill by 1.5 seconds and took first place in the 400-meter dash from Brockport's Marissa Wise by nearly 3.5 seconds. Schreiner's results achieved automatic qualification for the All-Atlantic Regional Track and Field Championships. On Jan. 24, Schreiner took first place in the 200-meter dash at the RIT Friday Meet, beating out Liberty League junior Lexi Rodriguez of Brockport with an even faster time. On Jan. 30, Schreiner took first place in the 200- and 400-meter dashes against Liberty League opponents. Schreiner also spoke out against states and colleges that were not offering the trans athlete a full scholarship when Schreiner wanted to transfer in December. The athlete blamed laws in 25 states that prohibit trans athletes from competing with girls and women. Advertisement 'Among all the hurdles transfers usually have, there is an extra layer because it is trans, 50% of the country banned me from participating and that meant I couldn't attend any of those colleges even if they reached out to me with a full ride,' Schreiner said. 'It also became clear that states that did, no matter how adamant the coaches were to have me on their teams, the college administrations would usually stop them from allowing me to participate.'
Time Business News
29-05-2025
- Health
- Time Business News
Understanding Pregnancy Discrimination and Your Rights in New Jersey
Welcoming a child into the world should be a joyful and exciting time—not one overshadowed by fear of losing your job or being treated unfairly at work. Unfortunately, many women in New Jersey still face discrimination in the workplace due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. At NJ Employment Lawyers, LLC, we advocate for the rights of working mothers and expectant employees. If your employer has denied accommodations, treated you differently, or retaliated against you because of your pregnancy, you may have a legal claim for pregnancy discrimination. Pregnancy discrimination is a form of unlawful employment discrimination that occurs when an employee or job applicant is treated unfavorably due to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. It can take many forms, including: Refusing to hire or promote a pregnant person Reducing work hours or responsibilities after learning of a pregnancy Forcing an employee to take leave even though they are able and willing to work Failing to provide reasonable accommodations, such as modified tasks or schedules Firing or disciplining someone for taking maternity or family leave Such conduct is prohibited under both the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). In New Jersey, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, including changes to job duties or work schedules when medically advised. These accommodations might include: Allowing more frequent breaks Light-duty assignments Temporary transfers to less hazardous roles Time off to recover from childbirth Employers may not retaliate against an employee for requesting accommodations. Denying these requests without justification may constitute discrimination. Employees in New Jersey may qualify for job-protected leave under multiple statutes, including: Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) – Up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for childbirth and bonding with a new child. – Up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for childbirth and bonding with a new child. New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) – Similar protections for bonding leave, often usable consecutively with FMLA. – Similar protections for bonding leave, often usable consecutively with FMLA. New Jersey Temporary Disability Benefits – Provides partial wage replacement during pregnancy and recovery. – Provides partial wage replacement during pregnancy and recovery. New Jersey Family Leave Insurance (FLI) – Pays a portion of wages while bonding with a newborn or caring for a family member. If your employer discourages, penalizes, or terminates you for using these leave entitlements, that may be grounds for legal action. Wondering if you've experienced pregnancy discrimination? Some red flags include: A sudden change in your performance reviews after announcing your pregnancy Exclusion from meetings, training, or advancement opportunities Being told your pregnancy will 'interfere' with your duties Discipline or job loss shortly after taking maternity leave Each of these may be more than just poor treatment—they could be legal violations under state and federal law. We understand how emotionally and financially stressful pregnancy discrimination can be. Our attorneys at NJ Employment Lawyers, LLC will take the time to understand your experience, gather evidence, and fight for the compensation and accountability you deserve. We've successfully handled cases involving layoffs during maternity leave, denied accommodations, and retaliation for using family leave. Whether through settlement negotiations or courtroom litigation, we work tirelessly to protect your rights and restore your peace of mind. If you're experiencing pregnancy discrimination in New Jersey, you don't have to face it alone. Reach out to our team today to take the first step toward justice. Address:101 Eisenhower Pkwy #300 Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 358-7027 About Us: NJ Employment Lawyers, LLC represents employees across New Jersey in pregnancy discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation, and other employment law matters. We are proud to defend the rights of working parents every day. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Yahoo
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislators aim to codify limits on non-disparagement agreements
Bipartisan legislation sponsored by Sens. Andrew Zwicker (D-Middlesex), above, and Declan O'Scanlon (D-Monmouth) would codify court-set limits on how non-disparagement and other confidentiality agreements can shield workplace abuses. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) New Jersey lawmakers are moving to codify court-set limits on confidentiality agreements that would bar workers from speaking publicly about retaliation, harassment, or discrimination. The Senate Labor Committee on Monday will weigh whether to extend a state prohibition on non-disclosure agreements to other types of confidentiality agreements that could bar speech about workplace abuses. 'We shouldn't be allowing powerful employers to bully people into not speaking out when speaking out is absolutely the right thing to do and should be their right,' said bill sponsor Sen. Declan O'Scanlon (R-Monmouth). The move follows a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court from May on the state's existing ban on settlement and contract provisions prohibiting victims from discussing claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. The court ruled that the ban also extends to non-disparagement agreements. That statute was enacted in 2019 through amendments to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination sponsored by former state Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen). It bars confidentiality agreements in those circumstances but names only non-disclosure agreements. 'The intent of the original Weinberg bill was to address this issue in totality. It didn't, but it's a simple fix. Both myself and Senator O'Scanlon want to ensure there is no possible question of what the legislative intent was,' said bill sponsor Sen. Andrew Zwicker (D-Middlesex). The absence of non-disparagement and other types of confidentiality agreements drew attention after Neptune Township moved to enforce provisions of its settlement with former police sergeant Christine Savage. Neptune alleged that, during a 2020 television interview where Savage referred to the township's 'good ol' boy system,' she violated non-disparagement provisions of a settlement reached to resolve her claims of gender-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. A trial court judge agreed with the township, and an appellate panel found the non-disparagement was legal, though they ruled Savage had not run afoul of the settlement's confidentiality provisions because her comments repeated already public information and focused on present conduct rather than past conduct. The Supreme Court then sided with Savage. The Supreme Court's decision means the bill, first introduced in 2022, would change little if it becomes law, though it would at least settle concerns about a future Supreme Court issuing a different interpretation of the statute. 'Court cases can change. I don't think this one will, but the bill was already in the works, and there's no harm in codifying this,' O'Scanlon said. O'Scanlon added the bill could serve as a message of support to victims of workplace abuses. The bill would also remove provisions of existing law that exempt collective bargaining agreements from the prohibition. Zwicker said that language made it into the original legislation over lawmakers' concerns about overstepping into union negotiations. He noted collective bargaining contracts typically contain similar workplace protections and said lawmakers would consult with counsel to determine whether it is necessary to end the exemption. 'I don't want to carve out a loophole here in any way, but I want to talk to a labor lawyer about that in particular before deciding whether we should keep that or remove it,' Zwicker said. The bill is not expected to face many barriers as it moves through the Legislature. The Senate unanimously approved the 2019 legislation and the Assembly passed that bill in an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Even the removal of the collective bargaining is unlikely to draw naysayers, O'Scanlon said. 'That would be pretty stunning, if they're going to come out in the light of day and say, 'In our contracts, entities should be allowed to bully people and harass them without any accountability,'' he said. 'Good luck. Please come out.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
