Articles Tagged with New Jersey Employment Attorneys

Published on:

Wage and Hour Laws Governing New Jersey Workplacesjustice-2756939__340-275x300

The Fair Labor Standards Act is the federal law which, along with the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor’s regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations, governs overtime and minimum wage requirements.  The Fair Labor Standards Act (known as the “FLSA”) requires that most employees (known as “non-exempt” employees, or those who are not exempt from overtime requirements) be paid “time and a half” for all hours they work over forty in any particular week.

In an action for violating the F

Published on:

group-418449__340-300x300Our labor and employment attorneys represent employers and employees in cases of wrongful termination and discrimination.  This is an area of New Jersey employment law which generates considerable litigation.  New Jersey’s Supreme Court recently issued an important opinion on when an employee may be terminated because her disability impairs her ability to perform the essential functions of her job.

Maryanne Grande had been a registered nurse for thirty years, and employed by St. Claire’s Health System for ten years, from 2000 through 2010.  St. Claire’s job description for a registered nurse included lifting fifty pounds from waist to chest “frequently” as an “essential” job function.  Grande suffered a series of injuries at work beginning in 2007.  Her final injury was suffered while she was preventing an overweight patient from falling.  Her doctor cleared her to resume full-duty work.  However, St. Claire’s ordered her to undergo a physical with its own doctor, who said she could perform lifting only “occasionally,” which it defined as “1-33% of the time.”  However, the report also concluded that it was “improbable that this will significantly affect job performance ability.”  The report also concluded that Grande could return to work with “altered duties.”

Her own doctor again examined her and provided her with a form which said she could return to work with only certain limitations on lifting.  The next day Grande was fired.  She returned to her doctor, who cleared her to return to full-time duty with no restrictions.  However the termination was not rescinded.

Published on:

electrician-1080561__340-300x200Our employment lawyers represent New Jersey public employees at the state and local level.  One problem that we have run into representing public employees is a recent opinion by the New Jersey Supreme Court which severely limits public employees’ options when their government employers have taken wrongful actions against them.

Avenues for Redress

New Jersey employment law gives government employees a variety of avenues for redress when their employers have taken action which violates their rights.

Published on:

police-1714956__340-300x200New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) provides a remedy for employees who are wrongfully terminated in retaliation for objecting to conduct which is believed to be illegal.  This Act is often referred to as the New Jersey “whistleblower law.”  In fact, it is one of the most liberally interpreted and expansive whistleblower laws in the country.  CEPA is a relatively new law, enacted n 1986, and thus has been the subject of much debate, misunderstanding, and misapplication.

CEPA provides wrongfully terminated or retaliated against employees with an avenue to seek redress.  An employee is protected under CEPA if she disclosed, objected to, or refused to participate in an act, policy, or practice of the employer which the employee reasonably believed violated a law, regulation, or public policy.  If the employee is then fired, harassed, or otherwise retaliated against as a direct result of the disclosure, objection, or refusal, that employee may have a claim under CEPA.

In the recent case of Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1 v. City of Camden, police officers brought an action against the City claiming (among other things) retaliation in violation of CEPA for the officers’ objections to the City’s policies regarding police-civilian interactions, based upon the belief that the policy violated the anti-quota law.