Published on:

by

Owners often choose to form their businesses as corporations or limited liability companies under New Jersey business law.  The case of Colonial Records Storage, LLC v. Simpson, where a creditor tried to get individual liability against a lawyer who was a shareholder in a law firm operating as a corporation, illustrates exactly why.

New_York_City_Hall-300x225

Background

The law firm of Stein Simpson & Rosen was a New Jersey professional corporation; Nancy Simpson was an attorney with the firm and was a shareholder, or owner.  A professional corporation operates under the same rules as a regular corporation, except that a professional corporation provides professional services such as those of lawyers, doctors, etc., and the shareholders may be personally liable for professional negligence, or malpractice in the course of providing those professional services.  The law firm went out of business, although it had not formally dissolved.  Simpson retired.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A recent appellate New Jersey employment law decision in the case of In the Matter of F.S., Police Officer (S9999U), City of Jersey City outlines the procedures for appeals by applicants who were removed from a list of eligible candidates for civil service law enforcement orjoe-b-300x200 firefighter positions for psychological reasons.  While the candidate lost his appeal, the Appellate Division’s opinion should give candidates faith that they will receive a fair shake before the Medical Review Panel and New Jersey Civil Service Commission.

F.S.’s Application with the Jersey City Police Department

F.S. passed the civil service test and received a conditional offer of employment to become a police officer with the Jersey City Police Department, a civil service employer.  The offer was conditioned upon F.S.’s successful completion of a psychological examination.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The Increase

New Jersey’s minimum wage rate is going up again.  The new minimum wage rate during this incremental increase is $13 per hour effective January 1, 2022.stock-photo-20612112-woman-leading-business-team

Background

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Mask, Surgical Mask, Virus, Protection
In September of 2021, President Biden announced a new mandate for all employers with 100 or more employees to require either vaccination or weekly testing and use of face masks for all of their employees.  The mandate was issued under the authority of the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) right to take certain actions in emergency situations.

As a result, dozens of lawsuits have already been filed seeking to delay and/or overturn the mandate. At least one court   has already issued a stay on the enforcement of the mandate pending a final determination.

On November 4, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS”) which sets forth rules and requirements related to this mandate. The ETS specifies that the mandate applies to employers with 100 or more employees total – meaning, that even if the employer has 10 employees at 10 different locations, the rules still apply to them.  Part-time, seasonal, and full-time employees all get counted towards the total number of employees. Staffing agencies would still count all jointly-employed employees. However, independent contractors are not counted towards this total.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Government employees receive significant due process rights to challenge employer discipline which private sector employees and employees in non-civil service jurisdictions do not enjoy.  However, because New Jersey employment law recognizes the great responsibility placed onhttps://www.newjerseylawyersblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/195/2018/07/police-officer-sil.-300x254.png law enforcement officers, the Legislature has enacted robust procedures for police officers not covered by civil service to appeal discipline to the Superior Court.  Nonetheless, in the case of Miller vs. Borough of Berlin Police, the Appellate Division reminds us that the burden of proof remains on the officer and evidence is king.

Background

Jason Miller was a police officer with the Borough of Berlin Police Department, a non-civil service jurisdiction.  He was dispatched to a banquet hall because of a report of the theft of a purse.  Surveillance video showed an employee taking the purse, the manager gave Officer Miller the employee’s name and address, and Miller took a victim statement.  Miller told the victim that the employee was clearly identifiable and would be charged with a crime (as the victim told him she wished), and that the case was a “slam dunk.”  However, Miller did not follow up or press charges, and stated in the incident report that the victim did not wish to pursue criminal charges.  Several days later the victim called the Department to follow up.  Another officer took the call, and eventually other officers arrested the employee, who confessed.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

New Jersey construction law involves many complex issues.  However, one of the most common is also the most basic: Contractors and subcontractors getting paid for their work.  The Appellate Division recently issued a published opinion on this topic in the case of JHC Industrial Services, Inc. vs. Centurion Companies, Inc., exploring one of the most potent tools which contractors and subcontractors can useconstruction to get paid: New Jersey’s Prompt Payment Act.

Background: The JHC Case

JHC Industrial Services, Inc. subcontracted to do demolition work on a project for Centurion Companies, Inc., which had in turn subcontracted with the general contractor to perform the work.  JHC performed the work in full, and the general contractor accepted the work and paid Centurion in full.  However, Centurion withheld $30,500 from JHC for no apparent reason other than not wanting to pay.  JHC therefore filed a construction lien against the property and sued Centurion in the Superior Court of New Jersey for violation of the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act.  The matter took two years reach conclusion.  A trial was held, and JHC prevailed on all its claims.  JHC won and received judgment against Centurion for $30,500, the full amount it claimed was owed.  JHC requested $104,670.51 in “reasonable costs and attorney fees” pursuant to the fee shifting provisions of the Prompt Payment Act.  The trial judge, however, awarded only $12,250.40 in attorneys fees and $4,125.33 in litigations costs for a total award of $16,375.73.  The judge explained that he did not believe he could “grant over $100,000 in fees on a judgment that could not have exceeded $30,500.”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The Appellate Division recently issued an employment law decision in the case of Matter of City of Newark and Newark Police Superior Officers’ Association, et al., concerning the ability of public employee unions to challenge the City of Newark’s COVID-19 vaccinationus-supreme-court-300x200 requirement.  The Court expressly held that the City has the right to require these vaccines as a requirement of continued employment.  Moreover, it held that not only does it have that right, but it has no concurrent duty to negotiate with unions over the requirement.

Although this case was decided in the context of whether the vaccine requirement was a matter which needed to be negotiated between the City and its law enforcement employee unions, it appears to slam the door on objections by public employees to employer COVID vaccine mandates, and it probably shuts the door for private sector employees to make that argument as well.

The Appellate Division explained: “When a public health emergency exists, governmental entities, including local authorities, have a recognized right to require vaccinations.”  The Appellate Division explained that this right exists even in the absence of a statute giving the City that authority.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In an important New Jersey employment law decision, the Appellate Division of the State Superior Court examined exceptions to the 90 day limit for challenging a board of education’s decision regarding a teacher’s tenure status.  In that case, Frayne v. Board of Education of the Borough of Highland Park, the Appellate Division demonstrated that the limitation period is a “hard” deadline, and missing it will likelycolumns-round-300x201 mean the teacher’s appeal will be rejected.

Background

Deana Frayne was a non-tenure track maternity leave replacement teacher for the Highland Park Board of Education from the 2008-2009 though 2011-2012 school years; thereafter she was employed as a full-time, tenure track teacher.  She signed her fourth contract as a tenure track first grade teacher for the 2015-2016 school year on May 15, 2015.   However, on June 25, 2015, she was served with a letter advising that the Board believed that she did not have tenure and that her employment would be terminated effective August 23, 2015 based on performance, behavior and attendance.  The Board offered her an agreement ending her tenure track employment, giving her sixty days health benefits and salary in exchange for a release.  She did not sign.  She then received a Rice Notice, and on August 23, 2015, the Board voted unanimously to terminate Frayne’s employment.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The Appellate Division recently issued a decision exploring the limits of progressive discipline in New Jersey civil service discipline in thepolice-officer-829628_640-300x199 case of Matter of Collins.

Background

Darius Collins was a senior corrections officer at Norther State Prison.  He had been a corrections officer for more than two years and had no prior discipline.  On January 6, 2019, he was the patrolling supervisor of prisoners in a high security unit.  Collins admitted that he left a gate between two floors open.  This allowed two prisoners to leave their tier to take unauthorized showers.  When they got back the contents of their cells had been destroyed.  The prisoners then became out of control and a ten man extraction team was required to get the two inmates back under control.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Background: Disability Discrimination and the Requirement of Reasonable Accommodation

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination bars employers from discriminating against employee’s because of a disability, provided they can perform the job with “reasonable accommodation.”  Because no two employees or workplaces are the same, no accommodations will be the same for two employees, or reasonable for different employers.  Thus, the regulations interpreting this requirement in the Law Againstwheelchair-1595794__340-300x200 Discrimination require that employers must engage in an “interactive process” with a disabled employee to explore whether there are accommodations which the employer could implement to assist her in performing her duties without imposing an undue hardship on the employer.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently explored these issues in the case of Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education.

Continue reading
Contact Information
37 Vreeland Ave
Totowa, NJ 07512
Phone: (973) 890-0004
Fax: (973) 256-3641

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2026, McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design