Articles Tagged with New Jersey Employment Attorneys

Published on:

men-1979261__340-300x200New Jersey has joined nine other states and the District of Columbia in enacting a law to require that employers must provide their employees with paid sick leave.  The law is among the toughest in the nation, and imposes many new requirements on employers.  Below are some of the most frequently asked questions about New Jersey’s Paid Sick Leave Law.

What employers must provide paid sick leave?

Virtually all of them.

Published on:

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is a federal statute enacted in 1938 with the goal of setting national minimum requirements for employee compensation.  It covers areas such as minimum wage and overtime, among other things.

On February 9, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was the first  United States Federal Circuit Court to address an area of the FLSA which is invoked relatively rarely in civil lawsuits involving compensation disputes.  In a case captioned: Secretary, United States Department of Labor v. American Future Systems, Inc., the Department of Labor (“DOL”) sued on behalf of the employees of American Future Systems, Inc., claiming that the employer was violating the FLSA by not paying employees for time that they were logged off of their computers over 90 seconds.

The employer did not deny that it was not paying employees for  “breaks” in excess of 90 seconds.  The dispute was whether that non-payment violated the FLSA.  Two different sections of the FLSA  were evaluated.

Published on:

pawn-2430046_960_720-300x209 Our employment lawyers represent many honorable New Jersey employees in disputes with their governmental employers.

The Winters Doctrine

As I wrote in a previous post, in 2012 the New Jersey Supreme Court created a serious hurdle for public employees.  In the case of Winters v. North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue, the Supreme Court held that an adjudication by the Civil Service Commission of allegations that a termination was illegal retaliation (even raised tangentially) barred subsequent litigation for violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (known as “CEPA”) based on the same facts in a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court.  The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court subsequently held that such a bar applied to claims of retaliation raised in disciplinary appeals under both CEPA and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (known as the “LAD”).

Published on:

police-2122373__340-300x200In 2014, New Jersey’s Governor Christie signed The Opportunity to Compete Act which limited an employer’s ability to ask a potential employee about criminal records in many circumstances. The State passed this law based upon several findings, including:

  • Criminal background checks by employers have increased dramatically with an estimated ninety percent of employers in the country conducting such checks as a matter of course during the hiring process;
  • Barriers to employment based upon a criminal record could affect approximately sixty five million people in the United States;
Published on:

whistleblower-1764379__340-300x300New Jersey employment law protects employees who object to or report illegal conduct by their employers.  New Jersey’s whistleblower protections, particularly the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, have been recognized as the strongest in the nation.  The various sources of these protections are discussed below.

New Jersey’s Common Law – the Original Protection

New Jersey’s common law – the body of law derived from prior court decisions – holds that it is a civil wrong for an employer to fire an employee “in violation of a clear mandate of public policy.”  What this has been interpreted to mean in the seminal New Jersey Supreme Court case of Pierce v Ortho Pharmaceuticals Corp. is that an employer cannot fire an employee in retaliation for the employee acting in opposition to a practice by the employer which was in violation of public policy, which in practice meant against the law.

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.