Steven S. Glickman represents public and private sector employers throughout the State of New Jersey in a broad range of labor and employment, education and municipal law matters. Steven works with clients to ensure compliance with federal and state regulations, develop and implement union avoidance and labor relations strategies, negotiate and document individual employment contracts and collective bargaining agreements, and create and maintain effective employment policies and employee handbooks.
Steven is also an accomplished litigator, and has represented clients at trial, in settlement negotiations and in arbitration. He has successfully advised clients in a broad range of matters, including employment and labor disputes, and law enforcement investigations.
“Employers face new labor and employment challenges every day,” says Steven. “Federal and state laws and regulations are always in flux. I draw on my decades of experience to help clients prevent and resolve disputes and, wherever possible, align the goals of employers and their employees.”
Steven currently serves as general and labor relations counsel to the New Jersey Conference of Mayors. He has also served as labor relations counsel and general counsel to the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, and as associate labor counsel to the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. He has served as an outside consultant to the New Jersey School Boards Association. Steven began his legal career as a Board Attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, Philadelphia region.
In 2012, Steven was recognized by Inside New Jersey as one of “New Jersey’s Top Legal Minds,” for the quality of his legal counsel and his high level of client service. In 2015, Steven was rated as a “Top Rated Lawyer in Labor & Employment Law for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability” by Martindale-Hubbell® and was also recognized by Martindale-Hubbell® as an “AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rated Attorney for Thirty Years.”
Steven is a member of the American Bar Association and the New Jersey State Bar Association.
Steven speaks and teaches regularly on labor, employment and education law topics, including at seminars and meetings of the New Jersey State Bar Association, the New Jersey Conference of Mayors, the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission, the New Jersey Municipal Management Association, the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, the New Jersey School Boards Association and the Monmouth County School Boards Association.
August 15, 2019
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE - OR NOT!
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD") is a very broad-based piece of legislation, liberally construed, to eliminate the "cancer of discrimination" Fuchilla v. Layman, 109 N.J. 319 (1988). The purpose of both the NJLAD and the Federal statute that it mirrors, the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), is to: (1) prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (2) protect the rights of these individuals; and (3) provide them with an avenue to seek assistance in protecting these rights through the courts.
March 14, 2019
EXCESSIVE SICK LEAVE: DRIVING WITHOUT A MAP
Hypothetically: A public employer has a collective bargaining agreement with a labor organization. The collective bargaining agreement provides its bargaining unit members with fifteen sick days per year. This public employer has a 20-year bargaining unit member who has used all three hundred of those sick days. The question is: Has the bargaining unit member engaged in an excessive use of sick time, and is that bargaining unit member subject to disciplinary action? If the governmental employer is under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, the answer is: Who knows?!
August 2, 2018
EMPLOYMENT AT WILL: BEWARE OF EXCEPTIONS
All too often employers read or hear about a law or case in their favor and run to apply it to their circumstances without further review or research. In many situations, however, there are exceptions to the "black letter" law or a court's decision. Such is the case with the doctrine of "employment at will".
March 22, 2018
BIFURCATION IN EXCESSIVE FORCE CASES
Excessive force cases under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 against police officers are being argued with greater frequency based upon Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1980). This allows plaintiffs' attorneys to introduce evidence related to a "pattern and practice" of a police department that otherwise, in a majority of cases, would be inadmissible as to the actions of the police officer or officers in the specific case being tried. To avoid such undue prejudice, a motion to bifurcate is warranted.
November 30, 2017
Social Media - An Employment Nightmare
The social media explosion has changed the way individuals communicate. This explosion has raised concerns for employers as to how control the use of social media by their employees and to what extent they can control its usage. It is critical for employers to establish a social media policy to put employees on notice as to what the employer considers appropriate or inappropriate usage of social media. It is imperative for employers to create a social media policy as a buffer to liability.
August 10, 2017
Mcdonnell Douglas Modified For Discrimination Claims Based On Disability - A Grande Roadmap
On July 12, 2017, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a decision in Maryanne Grande v. Saint Clare's Health System, outlining the steps for evaluating discrimination cases based on disability. The Court recognized the three-step analysis required pursuant to McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The first step requires that a plaintiff establish a prima facie case. If the first step is met, the second step requires the employer to establish the reasonableness of the otherwise discriminatory act or advance a non-discriminatory reason for the employee's discharge. If the second step is met, the third step requires the employee to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the reason proffered by the employer "was not the true reason the employment decision but was merely a pretext for discrimination."
April 20, 2017
Monell: Past Can Be Prologue
When governmental entities are forced to defend against claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the breadth and liberal interpretation of this statute renders defense difficult in the eyes of a jury.
December 29, 2016
While many employers are familiar with the term "progressive discipline," only a relative few fully comprehend its true meaning. Unions and employees would have employers believe that if an employee engages in misconduct, no matter the severity, the employer must start with minor discipline, i.e., oral warning, written warning, or small suspension. However, as in Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado, progressive discipline simply requires that the punishment must fit the crime. .
September 22, 2016
TELL THE TRUTH!!
In the movie "Concussion", all Will Smith wanted the NFL to do was "Tell the truth". That sentiment would be good advice for public employees, especially law enforcement officers. In In The Matter of Angel Reillo Camden County Police Department, Docket No. A-1216-14T1 (App. Div. Aug. 4, 2016), the Appellate Division weighed in on the significance of a law enforcement officer being truthful or, in the negative, of being charged with untruthfulness.
June 23, 2016
Beware of Hidden Recording Devices
With the expansion of social media and with the ever increasing enhancements in recording devices, the ability and desire of employees to record conversations with their employers has increased exponentially. The question is: Do employees have the right to surreptitiously record conversations with their employers? Unfortunately, for employers, the answer is YES!
March 10, 2016
Pay Heed to Payton
When established case law lies fallow, many times it becomes forgotten. Then, when it becomes applicable, parties fail to abide by its constructs. Such could be the case with Payton v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 148 N.J. 524 (1997).
December 10, 2015
Removing A Public Employee Who Is Unfit For Psychological Reasons
Public sector employers, especially those jurisdictions covered by the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, have wrestled with the issue of how to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that an employee is unfit for duty for psychological reasons. While removal of an employee on the basis of being physically unfit for duty is relatively easy to establish, lack of fitness for duty for psychological reasons is more difficult to prove