The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

December 31, 2025

New Jersey Attorney General Issues Findings in Case Alleging Retaliation by Employer

Laws that protect workers from employment practices like discrimination or wage violations are not very helpful if people fear losing their jobs or facing other consequences for coming forward. For this reason, federal and New Jersey employment laws prohibit retaliation for various protected actions, including opposing suspected unlawful policies or practices and cooperating with government regulators. Employers who retaliate against employees for engaging in protected activities may be liable for damages. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Division on Civil Rights (DCR) recently issued a Finding of Probable Cause in a case alleging numerous violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). This is a relatively early stage in the administrative process and is not the same as a verdict finding an employer liable for violating the NJLAD, but if an employer cannot reach a settlement with the DCR after a Finding of Probable Cause, an administrative prosecution may follow.

Section 11(d) of the NJLAD, found at N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12(d), makes it an “unlawful employment practice” for an employer to “take reprisals against any person” because of certain actions. These actions include:
– Filing a legal complaint alleging NJLAD violations;
– Providing testimony or other assistance in a legal proceeding brought under the NJLAD;
– Seeking legal advice about rights under the NJLAD; and
– Stating one’s opposition to acts that one believes violate the NJLAD.

The NJLAD’s anti-discrimination provisions cover much more than employment discrimination. They also cover discrimination in housing, mortgage lending, consumer credit, banking, and public accommodations. The statute’s anti-retaliation provisions apply broadly to people who oppose any type of discrimination it addresses. In 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed a broad view of the NJLAD’s protections against retaliation. It stated in its ruling that the NJLAD’s purpose is both “to fight discrimination wherever it is found…[and] to protect those who assist in rooting it out.”
Continue reading

October 21, 2025

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules That Commissions Are Wages Under State Wage Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employees are entitled to pay for the work they perform for their employers. An employer that fails to pay an employee what they have earned could face significant penalties under New Jersey employment law. The New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL) imposes civil penalties on employers for violating its provisions. Employees may also bring civil lawsuits under the NJWPL to recover the amount of pay their employers owe them, plus additional liquidated damages. The wage law defines “wages” to include numerous forms of payment. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of an employee in a claim under the NJWPL. The dispute involved whether commissions based on performance count as “wages” when an employee also receives a base salary. The court’s ruling provides an employee-friendly definition of “wages.”

The NJWPL defines “wages” as money paid to an employee for their “labor or services…on a time, task, piece, or commission basis.” It excludes “supplementary incentives and bonuses” that are not part of an employee’s “regular wages.”

Employers must pay wages at least twice a month for most employees. Each payment must be for the full amount the employee has earned up to that point, with exceptions for certain withholdings like payroll taxes, health insurance premiums, and retirement plan contributions. An employee can file suit to recover unpaid wages. The NJWPL allows them to claim 200 percent of the amount owed as liquidated damages, plus attorney’s fees and court costs.
Continue reading

October 10, 2025

Founding Partner of Resnick Law Group Gerald Jay Resnick to Speak on Landmark Richter Decision at the Upcoming New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminar® 2025

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The Resnick Law Group’s founding partner, Gerald Jay Resnick, argued the pivotal case of Richter v. Oakland Board of Education before the New Jersey Supreme Court in September 2020. This landmark decision unanimously expanded the rights of employees who are disabled and face denial of a workplace accommodation . On November 20, 2025, Mr. Resnick will be giving a featured presentation at the upcoming New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminar® 2025, where he will discuss the far-reaching impact of the decision effecting employees and employers across the state.

The Significance of Richter for New Jersey Employees
The Richter decision clarified two critical points under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). First, the Court held that an employee does not need to show an adverse employment action (like being fired or demoted) to bring a failure to accommodate claim. The New Jersey Supreme Court made it clear that the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation can be an actionable harm. The Court’s opinion powerfully recognizes the harm done to disabled employees who are not accommodated and forced to work in pain or under difficult conditions. It affirmed that the LAD protects workers who are compelled to “soldier on” without the accommodations to which they are legally entitled. This precedent ensures that workers can seek justice without having to wait until they are fired or face other retaliatory measures.
Continue reading

September 10, 2025

New Jersey Takes a Stand Against AI Employment Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employers’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) in hiring and other employment matters has raised concerns about how the technology may perpetuate discrimination in their processes. New Jersey and federal employment laws prohibit employment discrimination based on factors such as race, sex, disability, and age, among others. Recently, New Jersey has determined that these legal protections may make employers liable for discrimination resulting from AI technology. The New Jersey Attorney General (AG) and the Division of Civil Rights (DCR) issued guidance in January 2025 regarding “algorithmic discrimination” by employers using AI tools to aid in employment decisions.

While New Jersey does not yet have any laws that directly address the use of AI in hiring decisions, there is a proposed bill pending that would regulate the use of “automated employment decision tools.” This term refers to software that uses AI models to screen job applicants and identify candidates considered preferable for a position. Although that may seem harmless on its face, there is a problem: AI doesn’t think. Its responses are based on the prompts it is given by the user and are representative of the data on which it is trained, which may reflect historical institutional and systematic inequities. Therefore, if a machine learning application is told to weed out certain applicants based on a protected category, or is trained on biased data, it could result in biased recommendations.

The New Jersey AG and the DCR has launched a Civil Rights and Technology Initiative to review the risks of employment discrimination in AI tools.

August 4, 2025

New Jersey Proposes Revised Rule for Classifying Employees and Independent Contractors

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The difference between an “employee” and an “independent contractor” is critically important when it comes to workplace rights. Employers have a wide range of obligations to employees under federal and New Jersey employment laws. An independent contractor’s rights, on the other hand, usually depend on the terms of their contract with the employer. Some employers may try to classify workers as independent contractors to avoid legal obligations like minimum wage or overtime compensation. This practice, known as employee misclassification, violates both state and federal law. New Jersey has a very employee-friendly rule for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL) issued a proposed rule in April 2025 that would codify several New Jersey Supreme Court rulings that favored employees.

Independent contractors do not have the same legal protections as employees, particularly regarding compensation. An employer who fails to pay minimum wage or overtime to a nonexempt employee may be liable under laws like the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (WHL). Misclassifying an employee in connection with a violation of the WHL or other state laws can lead to further liability under a 2019 New Jersey law. An employer can face civil lawsuits and administrative penalties. On the other hand, an independent contractor’s only option is to sue for breach of contract.

New Jersey courts use the “ABC test” to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The test gets its name from the definition of “employee” found in the state’s unemployment insurance law, codified at N.J. Rev. Stat. § 43:21-19(i)(6)(A) through (C). State law essentially presumes that a worker is an employee unless the employer can establish that the worker meets specific criteria.
Continue reading

June 26, 2025

New Jersey Nurse Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Understanding Your Rights: Age Discrimination in the New Jersey Workplace
Age discrimination remains a significant hurdle for many older professionals. According to a series of surveys conducted by the AARP in 2022, a staggering 21% of workers aged 50 and older reported experiencing age-based discrimination since turning 40. For employees in New Jersey, both federal and state laws provide robust protections against such treatment. A recent lawsuit, which resulted in a $115,000 settlement for a New Jersey nurse, underscores how these laws can be used to protect workers’ rights.

The Legal Framework: Federal and State Protections
Enacted by Congress in 1967, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) serves as the primary federal protection for older workers. The statute protects employees and job applicants who are 40 years of age or older. Under the ADEA, employers are prohibited from making decisions about hiring, firing, wages, or other terms of employment based on an individual’s age. In New Jersey, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) offers even broader protections. Unlike its federal counterpart, the NJLAD does not impose a minimum age requirement of 40 for a discrimination claim. This means it protects workers from discrimination based on their age, whether young or old.
Continue reading

March 24, 2025

Third Circuit Rules on Employment Discrimination Claim Based on New Jersey’s Recreational Cannabis Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey has allowed the use of cannabis for at least some reasons for the last fifteen years. Still, the relationship between New Jersey employment law and cannabis law remains uncertain. Employees in New Jersey who use cannabis for medical purposes with a doctor’s prescription may have rights under state laws prohibiting disability discrimination. A much newer law allows recreational use of small amounts of cannabis. This law specifically states that employers may not discriminate against employees based on legal cannabis use outside of work, provided they are not under the influence of cannabis while at work. A job applicant filed suit against a major retailer after it rescinded a job offer because a drug test was positive for cannabis. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in late 2024 that the recreational cannabis law does not give job applicants or employees the right to file a private cause of action for alleged discrimination. This leaves employees with legal rights against discrimination but no clear means of enforcing those rights.

The New Jersey medical cannabis law took effect in 2009. It originally stated that employers did not have to accommodate medical cannabis use. Subsequent amendments to that section of the law have removed that language. Currently, the medical cannabis law does not contain any explicit employment protections. A 2020 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court, however, held that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination’s prohibition on disability discrimination applies to medical cannabis use outside of work. The case involved an employee who lost his job after his employer discovered he used cannabis with a prescription to treat the symptoms of cancer.

The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) became law in 2021. It states that an employer may not refuse to hire or fire someone, nor may it discriminate in other ways because a person does or does not use cannabis for lawful recreational purposes. It also states that employers may not take adverse actions solely based on “the presence of cannabinoid metabolites” in a drug test resulting from lawful cannabis use. Employers may, however, require drug testing to ensure employees are not working under the influence. The statute does not state that employees may file suit for alleged violations, although some courts have allowed discrimination claims to proceed.
Continue reading

March 17, 2025

Third Circuit Revives New Jersey Corrections Officer’s Claims Against His Employer

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employees have privacy rights when it comes to their employment, although the extent of those rights depends, in part, on whether they work for the government or a private business or organization. Public employers have obligations under various statutes and, ultimately, the U.S. and state constitutions. Violation of privacy and other civil rights may expose public employers to liability for damages. New Jersey employment laws protect employees from a wide variety of employer misconduct. Public employees may also enjoy protection under federal and state civil rights laws. A 2024 ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a corrections officer’s civil rights lawsuit against the county that employed him. The plaintiff obtained a jury verdict against a former corrections administrator for $662,000 in 2023. The Third Circuit’s ruling opens the possibility of making other defendants liable for the judgment.

Both state and federal law protect individuals from civil rights violations by government officials and agents. The New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) allows people to file civil lawsuits against people who deprive them of constitutional rights while “acting under color of law.” At the federal level, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a similar cause of action. Public employees may be able to file claims against their employers for actions that deprive them of their civil rights.

The plaintiff in the Third Circuit case worked for a county jail as a corrections officer. He was also president of the local union. According to his lawsuit, the union learned that several jail administrators were enrolled in the state pension system for law enforcement and firefighters, even though their positions as administrators made them ineligible. They also learned that one administrator had allegedly attained his position despite not fulfilling all of the requirements established by regulations and the jail’s collection bargaining agreement.
Continue reading

March 10, 2025

Study Shows Race and Sex Bias in AI Hiring Tools

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are becoming quite common for a wide range of uses in employment. Many businesses use AI tools in hiring as a way of increasing efficiency, They can train AI tools, for example, to screen out applicants who meet certain criteria, or to look for certain favored criteria. The trick, as it turns out, is to make certain that the use of AI in hiring does not lead to violations of New Jersey employment law. On multiple occasions over the past few years, AI hiring tools have produced outcomes that demonstrate bias based on race, sex, or other factors. Even if a machine or algorithm makes a hiring decision, the employers may ultimately be liable for unlawful discrimination. The legal system is still catching up to these aspects of AI. A recent study shows how biases in the information that an AI system receives can lead to biased outcomes.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) prohibits discrimination based on numerous factors, including race, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and national origin. Overt discrimination, such as refusing to hire someone specifically because they belong to a group listed in the NJLAD, is not the only kind of unlawful discrimination. Disparate impact discrimination occurs when a policy or practice has an outsized impact on members of a protected group, regardless of whether the employer intended to discriminate.

AI hiring tools may fall somewhere between these two types of discrimination. They can have a disparate impact on a protected group with no biased intent on the employer’s part. Studies suggest, though, that any bias AI shows is the result of bias in the information used to train the AI. Employers’ legal duty to guard against these types of bias remains an op[en question.
Continue reading

February 24, 2025

National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Takes on Non-Compete Clauses

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Workers have the right, under both federal and New Jersey employment laws, to engage in activities related to organizing and negotiating with their employers. This might involve joining or forming a labor union, but the law also protects more informal activities that have the goal of protecting workers’ interests. Employers may not interfere with employees who are trying to exercise these rights, nor may they retaliate against employees who have engaged in protected activities. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is responsible for investigating alleged violations of the federal labor rights statute. Its General Counsel (GC) may set certain policies for how the agency investigates and prosecutes charges of unlawful activity. In early October 2024, the GC issued a memo outlining her position that certain provisions in employment contracts, including non-compete agreements, violate federal law.

In a May 2023 memorandum, the GC defined a non-compete agreement as an agreement that “prohibit[s] employees from accepting certain types of jobs and operating certain types of businesses after the end of their employment.” Courts around the country have reviewed the validity and enforceability of non-compete agreements. They must balance an employer’s interest in protecting their business with an employee’s need for a job in their chosen career path.

While the specifics vary from one jurisdiction to another, most courts have held that non-compete agreements are enforceable when they have a limited scope in both duration and geography. A non-compete agreement that prohibits an employee from working for a competitor anywhere in the country for ten years, for example, would probably be unenforceable. It would prevent the employee from earning a living in their field of knowledge and experience. An agreement that only restricts competition within a twenty-mile radius of the employer for six months might be enforceable since it sets reasonable limits.
Continue reading