The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

July 29, 2026

No More Hiding Behind Privilege: NJ Appellate Court Clears Way for Employees to Expose Sham Workplace Investigations

A major new decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division has strengthened the rights of employees fighting workplace sexual harassment and discrimination. In C.S. v. Brick Recycling Company, the court clarified a critical standard regarding the “investigation shield” that employers frequently use to hide evidence in New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) cases. Under New Jersey law, when an employer claims they acted in “good faith” by conducting an internal investigation, they cannot use the attorney-client privilege to hide behind-the-scenes documents that could expose a flawed or biased process.

The case involved C.S., a truck driver who reported that he was being stalked and subjected to unwanted sexual advances by the company’s Corporate Financial Controller, M.R. Although the company president ordered no contact, M.R. immediately retaliated by leaving an angry note on C.S.’s car. The company eventually hired an outside attorney to conduct an investigation, but C.S. was forced to resign while the investigation was still ongoing. C.S. filed a constructive discharge and sexual harassment lawsuit under the LAD, and in response, the employer asserted a “good faith” defense. However, when C.S.’s attorneys attempted to evaluate whether the investigation was actually conducted in good faith, the company refused to turn over 36 pages of the investigator’s personal notes, internal emails, and draft reports, claiming they were protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges.

Under the landmark New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Payton v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth., an employer who relies on an internal investigation as an affirmative defense waives the privilege for documents related to that investigation. However, Payton left a loophole, stating that documents only “tenuously related” to the defense could still be withheld. In C.S., the Appellate Division defined “tenuously related” for the first time. The court ruled that any document is discoverable if it could either substantiate the employer’s defense or impeach it. If a document shows that the employer unduly curtailed the investigation, interfered with the attorney’s independence, or undermined the integrity of the process, it is sufficiently related to the defense and must be disclosed.

July 15, 2026

Third Circuit Ruling Shows Why Timing and Proving Pretext is Key to Employment Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit offers important lessons for employees facing workplace discrimination and retaliation. While the July 6, 2026 decision in Robert Lynn v. The Bank of New York Mellon ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, the court affirmed a crucial legal standard that benefits employees: being fired shortly after complaining about discrimination is enough to raise an immediate red flag for retaliation.

The case involved Robert Lynn, a Black manager at the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY). After transitioning to a new role, Lynn began to experience difficulties with his new manager and faced criticism regarding his performance. Following an ongoing dispute about his performance and an internal complaint regarding comments his former manager made about the Black Lives Matter movement, Lynn emailed his current manager to assert that he was being discriminated and retaliated against. Just thirteen days after he sent this protected complaint, BNY decided to eliminate his position.

The Silver Lining: Timing Can Establish an Initial Case of Retaliation
Continue reading

July 7, 2026

Historic Win for Employees Taking Effect Soon: New Jersey Significantly Expands Family and Medical Leave Laws

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

On January 17, 2026, Governor Phil Murphy signed Assembly Bill A3451/Senate Bill S2950 — Expanded Family Leave Eligibility, enacting a historic expansion of the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). This is a game-changing victory for employees who, until now, may have been unprotected.

Expanding Employee Eligibility

A major exception in the NJFLA previously left workers at smaller companies and those who have been with their company for less than one year unprotected. Effective July 17, 2026, the law will apply to all employers with 15 or more employees, significantly expanding the pool of eligible New Jersey workers. Furthermore, under the new bill, New Jersey employees will no longer have to wait a full year for their protected leave rights to kick in; eligibility will now begin after just three months on the job and 250 base hours worked during the immediately preceding twelve-month period.

June 30, 2026

Big Win for New Jersey Workers: Appellate Court Removes Hurdles for Collective Wage Claims

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

On June 29, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a significant decision in Martinez v. T. Slack Environmental Services, Inc., clarifying the procedures for collective wage claims and the applicable statutes of limitations for workers in the state.

The case involved an hourly laborer who worked on both public and private projects for a non-union contractor. The employee alleged that the company failed to pay properly calculated “blended” overtime rates during weeks when he performed a mix of public and private work, or when he worked under different job titles. The lawsuit also claimed the employer failed to pay for “off-the-clock” tasks, such as driving equipment to worksites and loading trucks, in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (WHL), Prevailing Wage Act (PWA), and Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL). The National Employment Lawyers Association-New Jersey (NELA-NJ) appeared in the case as amicus curiae (friend of the court), joining the plaintiff to argue that the state legislature intended for these remedial wage laws to provide a separate and distinct path for representative actions.

A central issue on appeal was whether the worker could bring a representative lawsuit on behalf of other employees without going through the strict class action certification process required by Court Rule 4:32-1, which can be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the employees, determining that the statutory language of the WHL and PWA operates independently of Rule 4:32-1 and does not require formal class certification. Because these laws are remedial and designed to protect workers from unfair wages, a plaintiff only needs to show that the other workers are “similarly situated” to pursue a representative action.

June 16, 2026

Many Workers Protected Despite Third Circuit Ruling “Overtime Gap Time” Is Not Recoverable Under the FLSA

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A significant new decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has clarified the limits of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), ruling that employees cannot use the federal statute to sue for “overtime gap time.” In Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services LLC, decided on June 3, 2026, the court determined that the FLSA’s plain text does not provide a remedy for unpaid, non-overtime hours worked during a pay period.

The case involved Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services, which operated fifteen healthcare facilities across Pennsylvania. Following an investigation, the Department of Labor sued the company on behalf of nearly 6,000 employees for systemic wage and hour violations. At trial, the District Court found that Comprehensive utilized an inaccurate time clock system, which led to employees being paid for their scheduled shifts rather than the actual hours they worked. The court also found that employees regularly worked through meal breaks without compensation and that the company miscalculated overtime rates by failing to include bonuses and shift differentials. The District Court initially ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor, awarding over $35.8 million in damages.

Unfortunately, the Third Circuit reversed a crucial portion of this award related to “overtime gap time.” Overtime gap time refers to unpaid, non-overtime hours worked in a week where an employee also exceeds the overtime threshold. The appellate court firmly held that the FLSA only mandates two things: the payment of a minimum wage and the payment of overtime for hours worked over 40 in a week. Because the statute does not expressly contemplate compensation for “gap time,” the court ruled that employees cannot recover straight-time wages under the FLSA, provided their average hourly pay does not fall below the minimum wage. The court noted that aggrieved employees are not left without recourse, as they may bring basic contract actions or pursue claims under state wage laws to recover these unpaid wages. For example, in New Jersey, employees are covered by the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, which mandates treble damages for wages not paid on time and in the correct amount.

May 29, 2026

New Jersey Appellate Court Rules Job Applicants Can Sue Employers for Cannabis Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A groundbreaking new decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division has clarified that job applicants and employees have the right to sue employers who discriminate against them for recreational cannabis use. In the recent case of Sanders v. The Levari Group, LLC, decided on May 26, 2026, the court determined for the first time that the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Market Modernization Act (CREAMMA) provides an implied private right of action for individuals.

The plaintiff, Darlene Sanders, applied and interviewed for a customer service position with the defendant. After receiving and accepting a job offer, she submitted to a pre-employment drug screening as part of the company’s standard hiring process. The test revealed the presence of cannabis from recreational use within the past thirty days, although Sanders was not under the influence at the time of her application. When Sanders followed up on her start date, a human resources representative told her she could take a repeat drug test within a week at her own expense. Unable to afford the retest, she declined, and the company rescinded the job offer and refused to hire her. Sanders sued the company, alleging it violated her rights under CREAMMA by refusing to hire her on the basis of her recreational cannabis use.
Continue reading

May 14, 2026

How a Recent Appellate Decision Expands Worker Power Under the NJ Earned Sick Leave Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A recent decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division serves as a stark reminder of the strict compliance standards employers face when navigating the New Jersey Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL). In Cano v. County Concrete Corporation, the court clarified the narrow construction industry exemption, the requirements for existing PTO policies to count as ESL, the consequences of poor recordkeeping and notice, and the rights of similarly situated employees.
Continue reading

May 4, 2026

Pukowski Factors vs ABC Test: Understanding the NJ Appellate Division’s Ruling in Sanger v. Next Level Business Services

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A recent decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division serves as a stark reminder of the hurdles workers can face when seeking protection under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). In Sanger v. Next Level Business Services, Inc., the court affirmed that independent contractors—even those facing egregious allegations of harassment—fall outside the protective umbrella of the LAD.

The plaintiff, Nisha Sanger, was an experienced recruiter who performed services for Cognizant Technology Solutions through an agency agreement with Next Level Business Services (NLB). Her complaint alleged disturbing conduct: inappropriate physical touching by a supervisor and a subsequent “proposition” to engage in sexual relations with a high-level executive to secure her position. When she refused, she was terminated shortly thereafter. However, the court never reached the merits of these harassment and retaliation claims. Instead, the case turned on a single threshold question: Was Ms. Sanger an employee or an independent contractor?
Continue reading

April 28, 2026

New Jersey Lawsuit Accuses Construction Contractors of Wage Violations

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Many workers are entitled to payment of a minimum wage and extra pay for overtime work. Workers who believe their employers have failed to pay them the correct amount can recover damages in civil lawsuits under New Jersey employment law. If an employer has falsely classified a worker as an independent contractor instead of an employee to avoid minimum wage or overtime, they may be liable to that worker under state law. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (LWD) recently filed a lawsuit against a general contractor and multiple subcontractors involved in a large construction project in Jersey City. The suit alleges wage violations, employee misclassification, and other claims.

New Jersey law currently sets the minimum wage at $15.49 per hour for most employers. This is the minimum rate that must pay to non-exempt workers. Both New Jersey and federal law require time-and-a-half for hours worked over forty in a week; thus, if a non-exempt worker makes $18 per hour and works fifty hours in a week, the employer must pay them $27 per hour for the last ten of those hours worked.

Failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, also known as “wage theft,” may cost workers across the country as much as $50 billion each year. This amount exceeds all other forms of theft, such as burglaries and robberies, combined. Private lawsuits and government regulators only recover a fraction of the amount lost to wage theft.

The public also loses because of wage theft. Worker misclassification alone may cost New Jersey taxpayers around $300 million per year in lost contributions to unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes.
Continue reading

April 14, 2026

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Disability Discrimination Question

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Federal and New Jersey employment laws protect employees and job applicants from disability discrimination. Disability discrimination encompasses refusing to hire or firing someone because of a disability, providing different pay or other forms of compensation due to a disability, or refusing to provide reasonable accommodations that would enable an individual with a disability to perform their job duties. The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in a case alleging disability discrimination in compensation, specifically employer-sponsored health insurance, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The allegedly discriminatory act did not affect the plaintiff until after she had retired. The court ruled that she was no longer an “employee” as defined by the ADA and did not have standing to file a lawsuit.

The ADA states that employers may not “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to… employee compensation” and other matters. The statute defines a “qualified individual” as someone who can “perform the essential functions” of a job the person “holds or desires,” either without assistance or with reasonable accommodations. The meaning of the words “holds or desires” was at the center of the Supreme Court case.

The plaintiff in Stanley v. City of Sanford began working as a firefighter for a city fire department in 1999. She was diagnosed with a chronic illness in 2016, and as a result had to retire from the fire department in 2018 after approximately nineteen years on the job.
Continue reading