Federal Court Rules that NLRA Preempts New Jersey Law

Recently, a federal court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts New Jersey law in a whistleblower retaliation case. In Davis v. Benihana, Inc, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the court found an employee—who filed a claim after being told to stop talking of wages in the workplace—must go before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Here, our New Jersey employment attorney provides a more detailed overview of the case.

Case Review: Davis v. Benihana, Inc 

The Facts 

Aaron Davis was employed as a chef at a Benihana restaurant location in Pennsauken, New Jersey. After initially resigning, he returned at the request of his former manager, Jerry Shott. During his second stint, a newly hired junior chef mentioned earning only $12.00 per hour. That chef asked Mr. Davis whether that was an appropriate wage. Mr. Davis informed him that New Jersey’s minimum wage had risen to $15.00 per hour. Upon hearing this, Shott convened all chefs and instructed them not to discuss wages in the workplace. He warned that such discussions could result in an immediate termination. Mr. Davis countered that employees had a right to discuss pay and could not be legally disciplined for doing so. He was then accused by his boss, Mr. Shott, of fostering a hostile work environment. He was later terminated and was removed from the restaurant by police. Mr. Davis then filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court alleging retaliation under CEPA and under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

 The Legal Issue 

The employer in this case (Benihana) moved for a dismissal of the CEPA and LAD claims on the grounds that they were preempted by federal law. Specifically, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) under the Garmon doctrine. Under San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, if conduct is “arguably protected” or “arguably prohibited” by the NLRA, state courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The defendants contended that discussing wages with coworkers constituted protected “concerted activity” and, therefore, the NLRB should have jurisdiction.

 The Decision 

Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted the employer’s motion to dismiss. The court found that Mr. Davis’s claims were indeed preempted by federal law. The court held that wage discussions are “concerted activity” under Section 7 of the NLRA, even if initiated by the worker. Since the same factual and legal elements supported both state claims and an NLRA charge, the federal court ruled that the case cannot proceed. The NLRB has the primary jurisdiction over the employment law case.

 The Implications 

The decision highlights the expansive reach of Garmon preemption into wage discussion and retaliation claims. Employers and employees operating in New Jersey must understand that disputes involving protected concerted activity must go before the NLRB.

 Get Help From a Top New Jersey Employment Attorney

At Poulos LoPiccolo PC, our New Jersey employment lawyer has the knowledge and experience that whistleblowing employees can trust. If you have any questions about whistleblower laws, including retaliation claims, please do not hesitate to contact us today for a confidential consultation. Our firm provides employment law representation throughout the State of New Jersey.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2024cv06569/549272/27/