Law 360

Law 360 features Co-Managing Partner Christian McOmber, Partner Peter D. Valenzano, and Associate Anna F. Esposito’s case against a New Jersey law firm alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

On March 3, 2025, the United States District Court denied Target’s motion for a stay to wait for a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in another case that has not even been briefed or argued. The Court ruled that “Defendant has not demonstrated that a stay would prevent undue hardship or simplify the issues for trial, and granting a stay would unduly prejudice plaintiffs by delaying the proceedings.” The Court also agreed with the Plaintiffs that “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant in one case be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” The Court’s decision is linked below.

In January 2025, the Court certified the Class covering all nonexempt workers who worked at Target’s New Jersey distribution centers from Aug. 6, 2019, to the present.

Partner Charles J. Kocher of McOmber McOmber & Luber P.C., who is representing the workers, told Law360 that allowing the case to go forward “will not delay ruling on plaintiffs’ pending motion for summary judgment on liability, which, if granted will pave the way for a damages trial on a class-wide basis.”

Law 360 features Co-Managing Partner Christian V. McOmber, Partner Peter D. Valenzano, and AssociateJeffery P. Rankel’s settlement in a claim alleging sexual harassment against a New Jersey law firm.

Law360 features Matthew A. Luber, Esq., Charles J. Kocher, Esq., Kelly E. Adler, Esq., & Jeffrey D. Ragone, Esq.,’s recent discrimination lawsuit against Progressive Pipeline Management LLC. Their clients, Mr. Flores, Mr. Baskerville, and Mr. Stanton alleged they were fired within days or even hours of complaining to their superiors about illegally low wages or their supervisor, Shane Lapresti’s racist abuse. Shane Lapresti allegedly made racist remarks about Black colleagues being incarcerated and instructed a worker struggling with mental health issues to kill himself.

 

McOmber McOmber & Luber attorneys Christian V. McOmber, Peter D. Valenzano, and Jeffery P. Rankel filed a Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury (Complaint) on behalf of their client, Robert Wilson, against Ole Hansen & Sons, Inc. (OHS) and three employees alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) and Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”).  Before he was wrongfully terminated, Mr. Wilson was a Property Manager for OHS and fulfilled his duties in a diligent and responsible manner.  

The Complaint alleges that Mr. Wilson’s direct supervisor repeatedly made sexually explicit and misogynistic comments, including describing in detail how the supervisor believed Mr. Wilson and his co-workers of wanted to “f*ck” a female co-worker. When Mr. Wilson tried to stop the harassing and inappropriate behavior, the harassment intensified and OHS employees bombarded Mr. Wilson with further obscene sexual comments objectifying him and the female coworker.    

It is further alleged in the Complaint that employees of OHS acted in concert to retaliate against and intimidate Mr. Wilson for trying to stop the harassment. In fact, another OHS employee, who had a reputation for violent and temperamental outbursts, screamed profanities and made threats of violence against Mr. Wilson, leaving Mr. Wilson so fearful for his safety that he had to call the police and report the attempted assault. This toxic and retaliatory conduct was aimed at forcing Mr. Wilson to leave his employment by creating a working environment so unbearable that no reasonable employee could endure it.  

As set forth in the complaint, instead of assisting Mr. Wilson, the human resources department and certain employees of OHS ignored Mr. Wilson’s pleas for assistance, allowed the retaliation to persist, and then set Mr. Wilson up for failure by fabricating non-existent performance issues to create a basis for their wrongful termination. 

MML is seeking the reinstatement of Mr. Wilson’s employment with all benefits, back and front pay with benefits, compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses, as well as any other relief available under the NJLAD. Additionally, Mr. Wilson seeks to require OHS to take appropriate corrective action to prevent retaliation and sexual harassment in its workplace including anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and civility training.  

In reference to the matter, Mr. Rankel stated, “As alleged in Mr. Wilson’s Complaint, we are seeking redress for the incessant harassment and abuse Robert suffered at the hands of his employer and hoping to prevent other employees from facing such sexual harassment, intimidation, and retaliation in the future.  Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson was punished and wrongfully terminated for doing nothing more than asserting his basic civil right to work in an environment free from such sexual harassment and threatening acts of violence.” 

Partners R. Armen McOmber and Peter D. Valenzano and Associate Lauren M. Hill successfully argued before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division on behalf of Plaintiff Margaret Gathman, overturning the lower court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint on Summary Judgment.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Care One Management LLC (“Defendant Care One”), terminated Gathman after she blew the whistle on Defendant Care One’s unlawful failure to return overpayments made by Medicare, Medicaid, and other entities and individuals. In January 2020, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted the Defendants’ Motion, determining that Gathman failed to establish a causal connection between her report about the refunds and her termination less than one week later.

Gathman appealed and the Appellate Division reversed. The Court determined that there were “genuine issues of material fact” which precluded summary judgment, and the Trial Court “should not have made credibility assessments of the proffered facts and applied those findings more favorably to defendants to find that Gathman did not establish a prima facie CEPA claim of retaliation.” Such issues of material fact included conflicts between the deposition testimony and a “sham affidavit” from Alberto Lugo, Defendant Care One’s former executive vice president, inconsistencies in the testimony of Defendant Care One Management, and the temporal proximity between Gathman’s report that she had returned $3 million in overpayments and her unlawful termination. Gathman’s case will be remanded to the Law Division, where it will be scheduled for trial.

“We are pleased that our client will get to see her day in court. It was certainly not lost on the Appellate Division that Alberto Lugo, executive vice president and general counsel of CareOne, literally denied knowing our client and the reason for her termination at his deposition, despite signing her termination letter, and then submitted a certification in support of summary judgment detailing the precise reason why she was terminated. Thankfully, the Appellate Division saw right through this ‘sham affidavit’ and acknowledged that issues of fact are best left to a jury.”  R. Armen McOmber, McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C.

Partner Peter D. Valenzano and Associate Lauren M. Hill successfully argued before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division on behalf of Plaintiff Tevin Welcome, overturning the lower court’s decision compelling arbitration of his discrimination and whistleblower retaliation claims.

After ten months and sixteen days of discovery including the filing of a dispositive motion, a motion for a protective order, the exchange of paper discovery, and the deposition of Plaintiff, Defendant Huffmaster Staffing, Inc., (“Defendant Huffmaster”) moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement buried within Plaintiff’s employment application. The Trial Court granted the Motion, rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that the company had waived the right to compel arbitration.

Welcome appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court. “If arbitration is designed to be a faster and more efficient process, the delay in this case of nearly a year before the company took action to compel it represents a poor counter-example”, the panel said. “We ought not encourage and endorse such lateness where it could have been easily avoided by the company or its advocates more carefully checking its own files and forms.”

Accordingly, the Appellate Court determined Defendant Huffmaster had waived its right to enforce the arbitration agreement between the parties. Welcome’s case will be remanded to the Law Division, where it will be scheduled for trial.

“We are very pleased with the Court’s decision. The prompt delivery of the well-reasoned opinion will now allow our client to litigate his claims in the law division, where they have always belonged.” Peter D. Valenzano, Esq., McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C.

Download Decision

Partners Christian V. McOmber and Peter D. Valenzano represent Mitchel Alboum in age discrimination and retaliation claim filed against Merck KGaA in Monmouth County, New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Alboum, a sixty-one (61) year old man and a seasoned and accomplished employee of Merck for 40 years was subject to intolerably hostile work on the basis of his age. In 2018, Merck hired two considerably younger managers, and for the first time in his four-decade career, Alboum was faced with poor performance reviews, a baseless performance improvement plan (PIP), and a hostile work environment.  

Alboum’s younger managers, Anthony Trebino and Kevin Stanton, littered Alboum’s performance reviews with offensive ageist commentary, belittled him, and refused to provide meaningful constructive feedback or assistance. They likewise withheld bonuses and pay increases until Alboum completed the baseless PIP. When Alboum complained about the discrimination, both verbally and in writing, his complaints fell on deaf ears. As a result, Alboum was forced to participate in a discriminatory and retaliatory performance improvement plan as a means of forcing him out of his long-held employment with Merck, all because of his age.  

The lawsuit, which was filed in Monmouth County Superior Court, alleges violations of, among other things, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Alboum seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

“This claim presents as a text-book claim of age discrimination. Rather than celebrate our client’s nearly forty years of dedicated service to the company, the Defendants have subjected him to an intolerably hostile work environment – all in an effort to force him from his job. As alleged, Defendants have deprived him of income, humiliated him with a baseless performance improvement plan, and targeted him with ageist comments.  We stand shoulder to shoulder with our client in standing up against this invidious discrimination.” Peter D. Valenzano, McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C. 

Read the full story.

Matthew A. Luber, Esq. and R. Armen McOmber, Esq. successfully obtained a reversal in the NJ Appeals Court to reinstate client Andrew Poulos’s whistleblower claim against the State of New Jersey. Mr. Poulos alleges that he was subjected to retaliation after blowing the whistle on his superiors in the Medicaid Fraud Division. Specifically, Poulos claims he was immediately fired for reporting that his supervisors lied to the New Jersey Comptroller James Degnan about the status of “Operation Blue Claw” –  an extensive, multi-year investigation of Medicaid fraud in the Lakewood Community.

Matthew A. Luber is quoted in the article: “We are very pleased with the reversal as the thrust of our client’s case remains intact. We look forward to prosecuting this case and obtaining justice for our client,” Luber said. 

 

MML represents Cynthia Wisenfelder, a former client relations coordinator that was illegally terminated by The Matus Law Group. Ms. Wisenfelder claims that, after being exposed to Covid-19, she inquired about working remotely and quarantining. Callously, the Matus firm responded by attempting to not pay Ms. Wisenfelder during quarantine, falsely accusing her of resigning from her position, and initiating an effort to replace her with a new employee.  Ms. Wisenfelder then tested positive for the virus, and five days after her return from quarantine, her employment was terminated for bogus, pretextual reasons.

MML managing partner, Matthew A. Luber, is quoted in the article: “As alleged in the complaint, our client was punished for requesting basic benefits information and a reasonable accommodation pertaining to Covid-19. Such retaliatory conduct is reprehensible and Ms. Wisenfelder looks forward to her day in court.” 

Read the full story

Case Update (October 28, 2021):

On October 27, 2021, Partner Charles J. Kocher obtained final approval from a federal court to the $3.15 million class action settlement to Tastykake drivers, which will provide substantial class relief to nearly 300 class members in PA, NJ, and MD to resolve claims that they were unlawfully misclassified as independent contractors and incurred unlawful deductions from their pay.

The court noted that “Class counsel are qualified and experienced advocates in class litigation, including employment litigation, and demonstrated their skills….”

“Apart from resolving this class action, the settlement might serve as a warning to companies who may be improperly classifying their workers as independent contractors to avoid the benefits of wage laws.” – Charles Kocher, Esq. 

Click here to read the Opinion.  In the words of the Honorable Joshua D. Wolson, “The Court must decide whether the Parties have baked a settlement agreement that is as tasty as a Tastykake. They have.”

 

Class Settlement Alert (April 14, 2021)

Partner Charles J. Kocher secured a $3.15 million class-action settlement for Tastykake drivers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland, as well as on behalf of opt-in plaintiffs under the FLSA, to resolve allegations of Tastykake’s violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. According to the operative Complaint, Tastykake allegedly misclassified its delivery drivers as “independent contractors,” depriving them of overtime and other benefits of being employees and also subjecting them to improper pay deductions. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Click here to read the order. McOmber, McOmber & Luber, P.C. and Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, P.C. were appointed as interim Class Counsel.

“Apart from resolving this class action, the settlement might serve as a warning to companies who may be improperly classifying their workers as independent contractors to avoid the benefits of wage laws.” – Charles Kocher – as featured in Law360 on April 12, 2021. 

If you believe that you may be the victim of a wage and hour violation please contact our team today.

“Target ran afoul of federal law when it fired a Philadelphia store manager for taking time off to care for his son with leukemia, the ex-worker said Wednesday in a suit lodged in Pennsylvania federal court.”

Law360: Target Worker Says Leave For Son’s Cancer Got Him Fired