Peikin v. Kimmel & Silverman, P.C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• considering the fact that plaintiff received employment benefits in Pennsylvania in determining that plaintiff was not an employee in New Jersey
• granting defendant’s summary judgment on plaintiff’s LAD claims because plaintiff was a Pennsylvania employee, despite the fact that Plaintiff performed 90% of her work in New Jersey and was a New Jersey resident
• “New Jersey courts have consistently applied the law of the state of employment to claims of workplace discrimination, and therefore only apply the NJLAD if the claimant was employed in New Jersey.”
• “New Jersey courts have consistently applied the law of the state of employment to claims of workplace discrimination, and therefore only apply the NJLAD if the claimant was employed in New Jersey.”
• there is no authority cited to suggest that the amount of business a claimant conducts in the state is a factor in considering whether a claim can be asserted under the NJLAD

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).