New Jersey Lawyers Blog

Published on: July 9, 2026

Appeals Court Examines When Marijuana Use by New Jersey Law Enforcement Officers Can Justify Termination – and When it Can’t

An appellate court recently issued two opinions in appeals from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission regarding the termination of three police officers sought by the Jersey City Police Department because the officers were positive for marijuana use in urinalysis tests. In the decisions, the court set a line between when termination is allowed and when prohibited under New Jersey’s regulation of marijuana use. joe-b-300x200

Three Positive Urinalysis Tests

The three officers, Norhan Mansour, Omar Polanco and Montavious Patten, all had positive results for marijuana from urinalysis tests. In subsequent interviews with Jersey City Police Department Internal Affairs investigators, they admitted the use. Officers Mansour said that he had purchased the marijuana at a legal dispensary and produced receipts. Officer Polanco also stated that he had purchased the marijuana at a legal dispensary but did not have receipts. Officer Patten purchased the marijuana from a friend named “Sal,” who told Patten that he had purchased it from a legal dispensary. There was no allegation that the officers were under the influence of marijuana on the job.

Published on: July 6, 2026

New Jersey Civil Service List Removal Because of Psychological Test Results Appeals Procedures Examined by Appellate Court

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey Civil Service List Removal Appeals

Under New Jersey civil service law, employment decisions, including hiring, must be based solely on merit. The civil service system therefore employs examinations which objectively test a candidate’s fitness. Successful candidates are then placed on a hiring list in order of their scores, with certain preferences for veterans. New employees must then be hired off the list in order of their placement, subject to the Rule of Three. Candidates for positions as law enforcement officers or fire fighters includes testing of their psychological fitness. A candidate may be removed from 7-300x225 a hiring list for failure of these examinations.

However, because New Jersey’s civil service laws are designed to ensure that employment decisions are based on merit and not because of favoritism, nepotism or discrimination, there is a robust due process procedure for list removal appeals. The candidate first appeals his removal from the list with the New Jersey Civil Service Commission. Thereafter, the unsuccessful party may appeal an unfavorable decision to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, and then ultimately to the New Jersey Supreme Court (which only hears a small, select number of appeals).

Published on: June 8, 2026

McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC Named to New Jersey Super Lawyers Top 100 List

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC is pleased to announce that Maurice McLaughlin was named to the “Top 100: New Jersey Super Lawyers” list in the 2026 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers*. Maurice has been included on the Super Lawyers list since 2012 before being named to the Top 100 list this year. In addition, Pauline Young was included on the New Jersey Super Lawyers list from 2020-2025. law-firm-2-300x184

Super Lawyers’ selection criteria is as follows. “Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a patented multiphase selection process. Peer nominations and evaluations are combined with independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. Since Super Lawyers is intended to be used as an aid in selecting a lawyer, we limit the lawyer ratings to those who can be hired and retained by the public… The final published list represents the top 5 percent of lawyers in the state. The lists are published annually in state and regional editions of Super Lawyers magazines and in inserts and special advertising sections in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers. All attorneys selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers, regardless of year, can be found on SuperLawyers.com.”

Maurice, with Frank Nardi, founded the law firm in 2002, and practices in employment, commercial and construction litigation. He is also a mediator appointed by the Superior Court to mediate civil litigation. Maurice is the author of the book New Jersey Public Employment Law published by Gann Law Books, now in its 14^th edition. Maurice is admitted to the state bars in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, and the United States Supreme Court.

Published on: May 27, 2026

New Jersey Appeals Court Clarifies Identification of Violated Regulations Required under Whistleblower Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Background

John Sloan was an employee of Cape Regional Medical Center and Cape Regional Health System, Inc. (collectively “Cape”), from February 2018 until October 2020, serving as director of plant operations. His duties included making sure that the facility’s maintenance, repair and safety systems were in compliance with their legal requirements.

Sloan made complaints to his supervisors that defendants had not complied with fire-safety regulations by failing to inspect fires extinguishers, exit lights and sprinkler systems (the “fire 6-300x225 complaints”), particularly during the increased patient load and decreased staffing caused by Covid. He also complained about the temperature and humidity levels in the operating rooms and electrical work in the sewage ejector pit (“the safety complaints”). He alleged that he was told to ignore the violations and threatened with discipline if he did not, and that he was yelled at and false accusations were made about his work performance. Eventually he was fired on October 16, 2020. He claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for his complaints about the defendants’ legal and regulatory violations.

Published on: April 21, 2026

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Does Not Apply to Architects, Appeals Court Says’

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Under New Jersey construction law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act applies to most residential and commercial construction projects. It is applicable to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. However, a New Jersey Appeals Court held in a recent decision that architects are not subject to the Consumer Fraud Act because of the “learned professional” exemption.

6-300x225

Background

The Borough of Caldwell contracted with Cozzarelli Cirminiello Architects, LLC for architectural services including design, construction and rehabilitation of Borough-owned facilities. CCA’s invoices were approved by municipal officials before being submitted to and approved by the Council before they were paid. After a new Council was elected, the Borough terminated its contracts with CCA. Caldwell then sued CCA in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Essex County for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Caldwell claimed that CCA failed to perform its services, failed to produce “products,” failed to support the Borough on construction bids, failed to produce construction documents, double billed the Borough, and billed it above the agreed upon rate.

Published on: March 18, 2026

Appeals Court Strikes Down Background Circumstances Rule in Reverse Discrimination Lawsuits Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination in Federal Court

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Background: Anti-Discrimination Statutes and the Background Circumstances Rule

Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination both prohibit employers from illegally discriminating against their employees. Normally the evaluation is straightforward under the McDonnell Douglas Test. However, in the case of reverse discrimination, i.e., where an employer is accused of discriminating against an employee who is in the majority, New Jersey and paterson-pd-john-and-andrew-300x183 many Federal courts imposed a higher burden of proof on the employee. In cases of reverse discrimination, employees in New Jersey state courts and many federal courts had to satisfy the “Background Circumstances Rule,” which requires that the employee prove that he “has been victimized by the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” However, in 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Background Circumstances Rule in Title VII cases in the case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.

The U.S. Supreme Court Steps In

Published on: March 4, 2026

New Jersey Appeals Court Rejects Argument that Public Employee’s Subsequent Employment Relieves Employer from Having to Pay Amounts in Separation Agreement

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Appellate Division examined a town’s termination of payments to its former employee under a separation agreement when the employee became employed by another town.

Background

Alberto Cabrera was the municipal clerk of the Town of Guttenberg, New Jersey. As so often happens, the parties wished to terminate their relationship. They entered into a Separation Agreement which provided that Cabrera would stop performing his duties and go on paid leave beginning on August 18, 2022, and the leave would terminate with his retirement on March 31, 2023. He would be on the payroll and paid his regular salary by the Town through that day. He would continue to get medical benefits through March 31, 2023. The Town would also pay him his accrued but unused vacation, sick, compensatory and personal days for 2022 and 2023. Cabrera agreed to submit a letter requesting this paid leave of absence, which he did the same day. The Town’s Mayor and Council voted to approve the agreement. Cabrera inquired about amending the agreement once, but it was never changed in any way.

Published on: February 17, 2026

New Jersey Appeals Court Examines the Effect of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act on Litigation of Related Non-Sexual Harassment Claims

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act

The New Jersey Arbitration Act and Federal Arbitration Act generally require enforcement of agreements to arbitrate disputes. This extends to the enforcement of arbitration agreements in employment contracts.

However, in response to the #MeToo Movement, Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. The EFAA provided: new-york-county-courthouse-1540991328RMS-300x200

Published on: February 6, 2026

We Are Pleased to Welcome Judge Peter F. Boggia to the Firm

by McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC

McLaughlin & Nardi is pleased to announce that the Honorable Peter F. Boggia, a retired judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, will be joining the firm as of counsel. Judge Boggia will be concentrating his practice on alternative dispute resolution, particularly mediation and arbitration. His relationship with our attorneys goes back over thirty years to when Frank Nardi served as his intern while Judge Boggia was on the bench, and the judge occasionally agreed with Maurice McLaughlin’s arguments when he appeared before him. photo-jpeg-240x300

Judge Boggia served on the Superior Court bench for more than twenty years in the Civil Division, both as trial judge and acting presiding civil judge, handling complex trials, including class actions, product liability, medical malpractice and serious personal injury claims. He also helped settle hundreds of civil cases before trial, and instituted the first mediation program in the Bergen County Superior Court.

Prior to his appointment to the Superior Court bench, Judge Boggia served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Arthur J. O’Dea in the New Jersey Superior Court, and as an assistant prosecutor in Bergen County, handling serious criminal cases. He was House Counsel for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and in that position tried hundreds of cases and earned the distinction of Certified Trial Attorney. Judge Boggia sat concurrently as Municipal Judge in the Bergen County communities of Little Ferry, Leonia, Maywood, Bogota, and Fairview, New Jersey.

Published on: January 27, 2026

New Jersey State Board of Examiners Authority to Revoke or Suspend Teaching Certificates Examined by Supreme Court

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The State Board of Examiners, which operates within the New Jersey Department of Education, is the agency charged with licensing New Jersey educators. It determines educator fitness and issues certifications required for New Jersey teachers and other teaching staff members. It also has the authority to revoke or suspend certificates in appropriate circumstances. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently examined the limits of the Board’s authority in the case of In the Matter of the Certificates of Nicholas Cilento, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey Department of Education.

Background

Nicholas Cilento was a special education teacher with the Woodbridge Township School District. On May 21, 2019, he was relieved of his teaching responsibilities because it was alleged that he consumed alcohol on school grounds. Tenure charges were filed in November 2019. Cilento appealed the charges and after an evidentiary hearing in which Cilento admitted struggling with alcoholism and consuming alcohol on school grounds, an arbitrator upheld charges of conduct unbecoming, violations of state and municipal law, violations of District policy. The arbitrator imposed a three-month unpaid suspension and reinstatement on a “last chance” basis.