The New Jersey construction law opinion in Site Enterprises Inc. vs. NRG Rema, LLC highlighted several important areas of the New Jersey Construction Lien Law.
The New Jersey Construction Lien Law replaced the Mechanic’s Lien law, and made it easier for contractors, subcontractors and suppliers
to use construction liens to enforce payment for their contract work on construction projects.
Some important New Jersey employment law issues were explored in a recent opinion issued by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court concerning the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination in the case of Kazaba versus Randolph Township Board of Education.
Charles Kazaba sued the Randolph Township Board of Education for age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination in Law Division of the State Superior Court for allegedly taking discriminatory actions against him because of his age. He was a security for the Board for more than 21 years and had no disciplinary record. For many years Kazaba was the only security guard, but at some point the Board hired additional, younger security guards with prior law enforcement experience (these were referred to as the “Ram Guards” after the high school’s mascot). At sixty years of age he was the oldest security guard. He claimed that his supervisors took a course of or actions favoring the younger Ram Guards and making his job more difficult because he was older.
On April 14, 2020, New Jersey Governor Murphy signed a food waste recycling bill (A2371) aimed at requiring large producers of food waste in New Jersey to recycle their unused food. This mandate is schedule to go into effect on
approximately October 14, 2021.
The law applies to “large food waste generators” which are defined as “any commercial food wholesaler, distributor, industrial food processor, supermarket, resort, conference center, banquet hall, restaurant, educational or religious institution, military installation, prison, hospital, medical facility, or casino that produces at least 52 tons per year of food waste.” Any large food waste generator that is located within 25 miles of a food recycling facility will be required to separate out food waste from other solid waste and send the food waste to the food recycling facility. Alternatively, these generators can compost their food waste (or other authorized anaerobic or aerobic digestion) on-site, or use other recycling alternatives.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (known as the “DEP”) lists food waste recycling facilities to include Trenton Renewable Power, LLC (Trenton, NJ), and Waste Management Core (Elizabeth, NJ). Therefore, a significant amount of generators in New Jersey will likely be considered to be within the 25 miles. Those outside the 25 miles range or with waste which is not accepted by the food recycling facility within their range may dispose of the waste as they normally would with other solid waste.
At first glance, both commercial and residential New Jersey real estate transactions seem to be quite similar. A contract is executed, title work must be checked, lender requirements must be met and the closing must be completed. But, from the initial offer through closing on the transaction, there are significant
differences.
A commercial real estate transaction usually starts with a letter of intent. This is a non-binding preliminary offer which states the basic terms of the anticipated contract and may include a non-disclosure agreement to give the parties security in the knowledge that the information provided will remain private. Under New Jersey real estate law, commercial real estate contracts are not subject to the three day attorney review requirements which control residential real estate transactions. Because of this, the contract will be prepared by one of the real estate attorneys and then negotiated and finalized before it is executed. Once it is executed all parties are bound by its terms.
The contract will usually include due diligence clause during which the purchaser is permitted to conduct inspections of the property and the records related to it. These Inspections can be quite detailed, particularly for industrial property, and can include structural and system inspections, environmental contamination inspections (which range from tank sweeps to phase 2 environmental inspections and compliance with the Industrial Site Recovery Act (known as “ISRA”), reviewing the history of the property, including the environmental history, investigating the zoning rules and regulations against the purchasers’ intended use of the property, performing title searches and searches with the New Jersey Division of Taxation to insure that the Seller is paid current on taxes, and examining records of income and expenses related to the property and/or its leases and tenants. Once due diligence has been completed and the purchaser accepts the property in its current condition, or the parties agrees on repairs, remediation or credits in lieu thereof, the next step is purchaser obtaining approval of any financing, if financing is involved.
A frequent problem in New Jersey employment law occurs when a business offers someone a job without a contract, that person then quits their current employment, the business rescinds the offer, and the employee is left without a job. There is no contract, so the employee cannot sue for breach of contract. What can she do? In an important New Jersey employment law decision, the State Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb v. Solimine that the employee
has a viable claim for promissory estoppel and may recover “reliance damages” from the prospective employer based on what she would have made had she not quit in reliance on the promise and stayed at her prior job. Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine which provides that a party should be responsible for the consequences when a promisee relied on its promise and suffers damages when the promisor fails to perform.
David Solimine offered Jed Goldfarb a job managing his family’s investment portfolio. Goldfarb would receive an annual salary of $250,000-$275,000, plus ten to twenty percent of profits made because of his efforts or advice. Neither the offer nor a contract were ever put in writing. However, Goldfarb left his current job as a financial analyst (where he had made between $308,000 and $466,000 per year) in reliance on Solomine’s promise of employment. After Goldfarb quit, Solimine withdrew the offer and Goldfarb found himself unemployed.
On March 9, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an important employment law decision on pregnancy discrimination in the case of Delanoy v. Township of Ocean, which confirms the distinct causes of actions that may be brought and how they should be brought under the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“NJPWFA”).
A female police officer for the Township of Ocean brought a pregnancy discrimination case against the Township based on standing operating procedures
(“SPOs”) and the Township’s treatment, which she alleged discriminated against her in violation of the NJPWFA and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).
A Federal Appeals Court’s recent precedential decision in the case of Gibbs v. City of Pittsburgh may have profound implications for New Jersey civil service appeals from psychological disqualification of law enforcement officer applicants.
Christopher Gibbs applied to be a police officer with the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Police Department. He was an honorably discharged Marine and had been accepted for employment with five other law enforcement agencies. Similar to the practice in New Jersey and as required by Pennsylvania state law, after he was found otherwise qualified Pittsburgh offered Gibbs an offer of employment conditioned upon passing an examination to determine whether he was
psychologically fit for the job. Gibbs had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). The examining doctor found him unfit because of his ADHD. The psychologists conducting the examination ignored the fact that Gibbs’s ADHD was under control, that five other departments had found him psychologically fit, that he had unblemished records as a police officer and a Marine, and they never explained how Gibbs’s ADHD would interfere with his ability to perform his duties as a police officer.
In February of 2021, Governor Murphy finally signed the long awaited “New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act” which legalizes recreational, adult (at least 21 years old) use of marijuana (or “cannabis”).
One of the major concerns which has existed since the very beginnings of this Act was how it was going to effect drug testing in the workplace and what job protections might need to be created in relation to employees’ marijuana use. The Act does address job protections. However, while several sections of the Act
came into effect immediately, the employment-related provisions are not expected to take effect until the newly-created Cannabis Regulatory Commission establishes regulations providing specific procedures and rules for generally practices in compliance with the Act. That Commission is supposed to do so within 180 days of the passing of the Act, bringing us to approximately August 21, 2021 before marijuana job protections will come into effect.
The Marijuana Act specifically prohibits employers from refusing to hire, firing, or taking some other adverse action against someone specifically because that person uses marijuana recreationally. Indeed, an employer cannot discriminate against an individual in compensation or in any terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based upon marijuana use outside of the workplace. Thus, marijuana use appears to have the same protections as other protected classifications such as race and gender discrimination. Again, we will have to see how the Committee addresses this to see what the specific rules will be.
In New Jersey, sale of a business is governed by the contract negotiated by the parties. But what if the contract is unclear, or the parties don’t agree on what the
terms of an oral contract are? In the case of Lee v. Lee, involving the sale of a restaurant and liquor license in Bergen County, the Appellate Division examined several bedrock principles of New Jersey business law, including oral contracts, the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and how parties are required to deal with each other. The opinion offers good guidance for the behavior of the parties in the sale of a business in New Jersey.
Mikyung Lee and Seoung Ju Bang orally agreed with Jung Lee to sell them a restaurant he owned in Fort Lee, together with its liquor license. The purchase price was $892,000, with a $50,000 initial deposit, and then another $50,000 when the contract was signed, with the remainder to be paid over time. The buyers paid the first deposit, but before a contact was signed, Jung Lee said he needed the second $50,000 deposit. Believing him to be acting in good faith, they gave him the second deposit. He promised to send a written contract with the terms they agreed on, which included having Lee’s company, Plan J. Inc., a part of the transfer because it held the liquor license.
Under New Jersey employment law, a school board must bring tenure charges when it wants to discipline a tenured teacher. The teacher can then appeal the tenure charges to the New Jersey Commissioner of Education. The Department of Education then refers the case to an arbitrator for determination of whether or not the charges should be sustained. New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently examined the procedures for appealing such a tenure arbitration decision in the case of Ragland v. Board of Education of the City of Newark.
Larhonda Ragland was a tenured teacher in the Newark Public School System. She received consecutive summative evaluations of “ineffective” or “partially ineffective” based on poor student achievement and classroom observations. The Board therefore served her with tenure charges of inefficiency. She challenged the Board’s evaluation process, and the Department of Education the referred the charges to an arbitrator.
New Jersey Lawyers Blog