New Jersey Employment Attorneys

Published on: March 5, 2023

New Jersey Employment Law Case Examines the Effect of Amendments Concerning Time to File a Lawsuit for Wage and Hour Violations

The New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and Wage Payment Law

Like the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law requires that employers pay non-exempt employees minimum wage for all hours that they work, and overtime (time and a half) when employees work more than forty hours per week. New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law requires that employers pay employees pay all employment_law_damages wages that they are due, and sets forth the timing and procedures for payments and permitted deductions. This is a much-litigated area of New Jersey employment law.

Suits under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and Wage Payment Law have long been required to be brought within two years of the violations or they would be time barred. However, in 2019 the New Jersey Legislature amended both laws to extend the time for filing a civil lawsuit for violation of the laws from two to six years. The amendments were silent about whether they would apply retroactively or only going forward. Generally, unless the Legislature provides for retroactive application of new statutes of limitations they apply only prospectively – in other words they normally apply only going forward to acts which occurred after the amendment, not looking backward to what happened before. These amendments were to take effect immediately upon enactment, which occurred on August 6, 2019.

Published on: March 1, 2023

Recent New Jersey Employment Law Decisions Explain When Police Officer Records May Be Disclosed

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey employment law in the public sector contains few more contentious areas than the confidentiality of the disciplinary and personnel records of law enforcement officers. A trio of published New Jersey State and Federal court opinions have shed light on this contentious and evolving area of the law. police-1714956__340-300x200

In re Attorney General Law Enforcement Directives: Disciplinary Records

The Legislature has tasked the New Jersey Attorney General with supervising law enforcement throughout the state. In 2020, in the midst of the George Floyd protests, the New Jersey Attorney General used that authority to issue two directives which would release the names of law enforcement officers who have committed violations resulting in “major discipline,” and to issue summaries of the underlying complaints and discipline imposed. Although the directives apply to all State and local jurisdictions, they define “major discipline” similarly to New Jersey civil service law: suspension of greater than five days, demotion, or termination. The Attorney General’s given reasons for the directives were to “promote trust, transparency and accountability.”

Published on: January 5, 2023

New Jersey Age Discrimination in Employment Protections Strengthened

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

New Jersey employment law has long been at the forefront of prohibiting discrimination. Indeed, the Legislature adopted New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination in 1945, long before the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 first banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, and even before the President Harry Truman’s Executive Order desegregating the Armed Forces in 1948. The Law Against Discrimination has been amended many times since then to expand the protections against discrimination in employment, and decisions by New Jersey courts have interpreted the Law to provide much broader protections than those provided by similar Federal statutes such as the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (known as the “ADEA”). However, the Law Against Discrimination is not without its flaws. The New Jersey Legislature acted in 2021 to fix one of these flaws by strengthening the protections against age discrimination.

Prior Loopholes in Age Discrimination Protections

Published on: August 15, 2022

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Employee’s Claims of Employer Retaliation for Filing Lawsuit Under NJ Law Against Discrimination

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is one of the main employee protections under New Jersey employment law. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently examined the anti-retaliation provisions of the Law Against Discrimination. us-supreme-court-300x200

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

The Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers from taking adverse action against an employee or harassing them

Published on: July 16, 2022

New Jersey Non-Compete Agreements and Employee Duty of Loyalty Examined by Appellate Division

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey law imposes certain requirements on the behavior of employees, whether through the common law or contract. New Jersey employment law and business law will enforce restrictive covenants, including non-compete agreements, if they meet certain requirements. However, the tests for enforceability are different for restrictive covenants contained in employment agreements and those which are part of stock-photo-4786200-handshake-at-the-business-meeting the sale of a business. Likewise, whether or not there are restrictive covenants, New Jersey employment law imposes on employees a duty of loyalty to their employers. The Appellate Division recently examined these requirements.

Background

Robert Ryerson was a registered investment advisor (RIA), providing financial planning and investment services until the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) found him guilty of misconduct in 2006 by sharing commissions with non-NASD members and intentionally misleading his employer. Ryerson owned and operated NCP, a small financial advisory firm. However, the NASD’s revocation of his license meant he could no longer operate NCP.

Published on: May 2, 2022

The Veterans Preference and Disabled Veterans Preference in New Jersey Civil Service

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey Civil Service law give a hiring preference to “veterans” which ranks them higher on eligible lists if they otherwise meet the eligibility requirements. This is known as the Civil Service veterans preference.

However, not everyone who is considered a “veteran” by the Federal Government, military, or Veterans Administration is eligible for the civil service veterans preference. No photo description available. Eligible veterans include only those who received a discharge not characterized as dishonorable and who served at least 90 days in World War I and World War II, or who served at least 14 days in the operations area in the following conflicts: the Korean War; the Vietnam War; the Lebanon Crisis of 1958; the Lebanon peacekeeping mission in the 1980s; the Grenada peacekeeping mission in 1983; the Panama peacekeeping mission; Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm; Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch; Operation Restore Hope in Somalia; Operations Joint Endeavor and Joint Guard in Bosnia; Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti (if the veteran received the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for their Haitian service); Operation Enduring Freedom; and Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Veterans” also include service members receiving injuries in those operations regardless of the length of their service in them.

Disabled veterans” are “veterans” of those conflicts who receive compensation of at least ten percent for a service-connected disability arising out of those defined operations. Certain spouses and parents are also eligible if the veteran or disabled veteran does not or cannot use the preference.

Published on: February 16, 2022

New Jersey Civil Service Discipline

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Background. New Jersey Civil Service exists remove favoritism, nepotism, politics and other improper considerations from employment decisions. This includes Civil Service discipline. Because Civil Service employers are governmental entities, due process and fundamental fairness protections govern discipline. supreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200

As far back as 1961, the Appellate Division gave a good summary of Civil Service disciplinary procedures.

Disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant are not only an attempt to determine the status of a particular individual; they are a statutorily authorized action to redress a wrong committed against the people of the State by one in whom the public trust has been officially reposed. The proceedings are therefore penal, or at least quasi-penal, in nature, and deeply embedded constructional principles, supported by fundamental notions of fairness, dictate that in such an action the statute or regulation defining the alleged violation be construed to comport with the fair meaning of the language used. The theme of fairness threads its way through the notice, hearing, and right of appeal provisions of our Civil Service Act, and finds particular pertinence in those sections requiring that the causes for removal constituting ‘just cause’ be enumerated with specificity. The governing consideration, that one be fairly and completely advised of the nature of the charges against him, loses all effectiveness if it is not reinforced by a requirement that the proscribed activities and contingencies warranting disciplinary proceedings be set forth with reasonable particularity and construed accordingly.

Published on: February 13, 2022

Court Explains De Facto Employee Law for New Jersey Government Employees

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Under the New Jersey public employment law and Title 18A of New Jersey statute, which governs New Jersey employment law for public school and public college employees, if an employee is actually performing the work of a particular position, even though they are designated in another, they must receive the compensation for the job they are working in. In other words, public employers can’t underpay employees bully-3233568__340-300x272 by having them fill a higher or more difficult position while paying them for a lower or less difficult one. The Appellate Division recently examined these statutes.

The De Facto Employee Laws

Title 18A provides that:

Published on: February 11, 2022

New Jersey Civil Service Classification Appeals

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

In General. The New Jersey Civil Service Act establishes three classes of civil service employees: Career (or “classified”), unclassified and, in State service, the Senior Executive Service. The New Jersey Civil Service Commission has the job of classifying positions – it is the positions which are classified, not people.

Classification. Each position in the career and unclassified services are then assigned to a job title by the Commission. It specifies the qualifications, duties and responsibilities for each title. It does this through a classification plan for all State government positions and similar plans for political subdivisions. When necessary, the Commission will modify specifications to ensure their accuracy. It is also responsible for notifying appointing authorities and employees of changes in classification plans which effect them.

Public employees in New Jersey Civil Service must be appointed under a title which corresponds to the duties which the employee actually performs. The employer’s authority to assign terms of office or employment is a limited by the terms of the classification plan. Appointing authorities are required to notify the Commission of new positions, organizational changes, or changes to employee responsibilities; they must annually submit updated organizational charts. In State service, the negotiations representative (ie., the union) must be given notice of changes to the plan, including: reorganizations of titles or title series, or requests for new ones; request for reevaluation of job content; requests for modification of job specifications; and changes to flextime programs, alternate workweek programs and or hours.

Published on: October 21, 2021

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Rules on Limitation Period to File Tenure Appeals

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

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 likely columns-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.