The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

July 5, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court Sets Limit on New Jersey Workers’ Rights During Strikes

New Jersey employment laws at both the state and federal levels protect a wide range of workers’ rights. When federal and state laws seem to conflict with one another, federal law often supersedes state law, although, this is not always the case. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a preemption question related to labor rights. A group of workers and their union argued that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees workers’ right to self-organization for collective bargaining purposes, preempted a property damage claim that the employer brought against the union. Unfortunately, the court ruled in the employer’s favor in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, meaning that the court set a limit on the protection that the NLRA offers.

The NLRA protects the rights of workers to organize themselves into unions or join existing unions, and to engage in activities related to organizing, collective bargaining, and “other mutual aid or protection.” Workers also have the right to refrain from union-related activities. The statute prohibits both employers and unions from interfering with employees’ rights or coercing them. Once employees have formed or chosen a union to represent them, their employer must negotiate with that union in good faith on employment issues.

Because the NLRA is a federal statute, its provisions might preempt some state law claims. The doctrine of federal preemption is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal law is “the supreme Law of the Land,” regardless of whether state laws say something different.
Continue reading

June 29, 2023

EEOC Joins Other Federal Agencies to Warn About Potential Bias in Use of AI in Employment Decisions

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has received a large amount of media coverage recently, largely due to applications that use AI to create visual or written works. Businesses have been using AI tools for a variety of purposes for some time, including the hiring process. Since AI is a relatively new technology, New Jersey employment laws have not caught up to many of its latest functions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken notice of numerous risks posed by AI, including implicit bias in hiring. Last year, it issued guidance regarding the use of AI as a decision-making tool. It joined with several other federal agencies in April 2023 to issue a joint statement about potential legal liabilities from relying on AI. A bill pending in the New Jersey Legislature would regulate AI tools that could contribute to employment discrimination. A similar law is set to take effect in New York City in July.

Multiple state and federal statutes prohibit discrimination in hiring, firing, and other features of employment based on certain factors. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) specifically protects workers against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, genetic information, and other protected categories. Federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 also deal with workplace discrimination.

Discrimination does not have to be overt or intentional to violate the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that employment policies or practices are unlawful if they have a discriminatory impact. Much of the concern over the use of AI in hiring decisions stems from the fact that it might use data from past hiring practices to guide decisions in the present. This can lead to disparate impact discrimination, even if no one intended to discriminate.
Continue reading

June 15, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Employee’s Favor in FLSA Claim

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Federal and New Jersey employment laws require employers to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation to workers, subject to numerous exemptions. This includes employees who work in an “executive” capacity. While the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define this term, regulations provide a working definition that includes a baseline weekly rate of pay. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a dispute between an employer and an employee who earned significantly more than this amount. The parties disagreed over whether the exemption for executives applied to him. The court ruled in the employee’s favor in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, finding that he is entitled to overtime compensation.

Section 7 of the FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees one-and-a-half times their regular wage for hours worked over forty in a week. Section 13(a)(1), however, exempts employees who work “in a bona fide executive…capacity.” Regulations issued by the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor provide a four-part definition of an “employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity”:
1. Weekly pay of at least $684 per week on a “salary basis”;
2. Management as a “primary duty”;
3. Authority to “direct[] the work of two or more other employees”; and
4. Authority or influence over decisions regarding hiring and firing.

The regulations define “salary basis,” in essence, as payment of a predetermined amount no more frequently than once a week. At the time of the events at issue in Helix Energy, the minimum weekly pay amount was $455. The WHD amended the regulation in 2019 to raise it to $684.
Continue reading

June 9, 2023

NLRB Limits Employers’ Ability to Discipline New Jersey Workers Engaged in Protected Activities

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects a wide range of workplace rights. New Jersey employment laws also address labor organizing, but the NLRA offers broad protections nationwide. Decisions from federal courts and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have clarified how workers may exercise their rights to organize themselves and engage in collective bargaining with their employers, as well as what employers may and may not do. In May 2023, the NLRB issued a ruling that made rather sweeping changes to the manner in which employers may discipline employees who are engaged in protected activities. The decision overturns a 2020 NLRB decision which also made sweeping changes. In that sense, the May 2023 decision reinstates rules and standards that had been in place for decades. The end result is greater protection for workers engaged in labor organizing.

Section 7 of the NLRA provides a brief but expansive list of rights enjoyed by workers in New Jersey and throughout the country. The list of prohibited acts by employers found in § 8(a) of the statute is similarly short on details. Section 8(a)(1), for example, merely states that employers may not “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees” with regard to the rights protected by § 7. Decades of decisions from the NLRB have provided practical details about how the NLRA protects workers.

The May 1, 2023 decision involves an employee who was discharged by their employer for alleged “abusive conduct.” The employee claimed that the discharge violated the NLRA since they were engaged in activities protected by § 7 at the time. The NLRB ruled in favor of the employee in May 2020. It held at the time that the employer violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (3). The employer appealed to a Circuit Court of Appeals. While the case was pending in that court, the NLRB issued a ruling in an unrelated case in July 2020 that made significant changes.
Continue reading

June 1, 2023

What New Jersey Employees Should Know About the End of the COVID-19 National Emergency

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The United States has been subject to multiple declared States of Emergency (SOEs) and Public Health Emergencies (PHE) since March 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic was just beginning at that point, and it continued to be a major concern well into 2021 and 2022. As of May 2023, the federal government and the State of New Jersey have ended some or all of their emergency declarations. The New Jersey governor officially ended the state’s PHE more than a year ago, in March 2022, while the state’s SOE remains in place. Most recently, the federal PHE ended on May 11, 2023. The state and federal emergencies have had a major impact on how New Jersey employment laws protect workers. The end of those declarations could also impact New Jersey workers.

What Was the Public Health Emergency?

The federal government issued emergency declarations in early 2020. The New Jersey governor issued Executive Order (EO) 103, which declared both a SOE and a PHE, on March 9, 2020.

Emergency declarations give various extra powers, mostly related to healthcare, to local, state, and federal governments. This often includes mandates affecting employers. EO 292, issued in March 2022, ended the New Jersey PHE but left the SOE in place. The national SOE ended on April 10, 2023, followed by the PHE on May 11.

May 26, 2023

Labor Department Updates FMLA Poster for New Jersey Workplaces

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

New Jersey employment laws at both the state and federal levels protect the rights of employees to take time off from work for certain reasons. These include medical issues affecting themselves or family members. Employers must allow workers to return to their jobs, or a substantially similar job with the same pay and benefits, at the end of their authorized leave. New Jersey provides paid leave for personal or family medical issues. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave for similar reasons. Employees must work for a covered employer and meet eligibility requirements in order to take protected FMLA leave. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued an updated poster that covered employers must display in the workplace. The poster outlines employees’ rights and employers’ obligations under the statute.

Family leave is available to New Jersey workers through state law as a form of insurance. Covered employers fund the system through payroll taxes. To be eligible, a worker must have worked the minimum number of hours necessary to pay into the program. Eligible workers in New Jersey may be able to take up to:
– 26 weeks of medical leave for non-work-related injuries or illnesses;
– 12 weeks of family leave to care for a family member;
– 12 weeks of family leave for a new parent to bond with a newborn infant or newly adopted or fostered child within one year of the child’s arrival; or
– 12 weeks of family leave for a new mother to bond with her infant, as well as 26 weeks of temporary disability leave before and after the birth.
The amount of pay workers may receive while on leave is equal to 85% of their average weekly pay or $1,025 per week, whichever amount is smaller. Unpaid leave with job protection is also available under state law.

The benefits offered by the FMLA are simpler than those provided by New Jersey law. Eligible employees may take up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave for:
– A new child, whether by birth, adoption, or foster placement;
– A serious illness or injury that prevents an individual from working;
– A close family member’s serious illness or injury; or
– Issues related to the military deployment of a close family member.
The eligibility rules for FMLA leave, on the other hand, are quite complicated. An employee must work for a covered employer, and they must meet minimum requirements for the number of hours worked.
Continue reading

May 18, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case Involving Whistleblower Protection Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

People who believe that their employers have engaged in illegal or unethical behavior should be able to come forward without fear of losing their jobs or facing other forms of retaliation. New Jersey employment law offers broad protections for whistleblowers who report alleged wrongdoing by their employers and engage in other protected activities. At the federal level, numerous statutes include whistleblower protections in specific industries or for specific types of claims. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), for example, protects employees of publicly-traded corporations who report alleged fraud or violations of securities laws. The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case involving a dispute over who has the burden of proving “retaliatory intent” in SOX whistleblower cases.

New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) prohibits employers from “tak[ing] any retaliatory action” against an employee for numerous protected activities. These may include the following:
– Reporting or threatening to report activities that the employee reasonably believes are illegal, unethical, or fraudulent;
– Cooperating with investigations or hearings regarding suspected illegal acts by the employer;
– Testifying in connection with such investigations;
– Objecting to activities or policies that the employee believes are unlawful, fraudulent, or against public policy; and
– Reporting an alleged violation of CEPA.

While CEPA applies to all employers in New Jersey, the whistleblower protection provisions in SOX only apply to employers that are also publicly-traded corporations governed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations. The statute’s list of protected activities is similar to CEPA’s list, except that it only applies to reports and investigations related to certain types of fraud, including wire fraud, bank fraud, and securities fraud, as well as violations of SEC regulations and other securities laws.
Continue reading

May 12, 2023

New Jersey Court Allows Wrongful Termination Case Based on Legal Cannabis Use to Proceed

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New Jersey Legislature passed a law in 2021 that legalizes the recreational use of cannabis. The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) protects employees against adverse actions by their employers based on legal cannabis use. While the state has issued guidelines that address how employers should handle issues like impairment in the workplace, many aspects of the new law’s employment protections have yet to be tested in the courts. A New Jersey federal court recently ruled in favor of a plaintiff who has alleged wrongful termination by his employer in violation of CREAMMA, denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The employment provisions of CREAMMA attempt to balance employees’ legal rights with employers’ interest in maintaining drug-free workplaces. Employers may not refuse to hire someone because they engage in legal cannabis use, nor may they fire them or take other adverse actions against them for that reason. Employees also have the right to refuse to engage in activities that are legal under CREAMMA. Drug testing by employers is allowed under certain circumstances. Employers may require that employees abstain from legal cannabis use and not be under the influence of cannabis during work hours. With some exceptions, though, they cannot prohibit lawful use outside of work.

The lawsuit described above arose from an automobile accident in late 2021 involving the plaintiff, who was driving a company vehicle at the time. According to the court, the plaintiff was not under the influence of cannabis or any other substance, nor did anyone suspect that he was. The employer required the plaintiff to submit to a drug test as a standard part of its safety policy. The plaintiff claims that, prior to the drug test, he alerted the employer about cannabis use outside of work about two weeks earlier. The test was positive for cannabis, resulting in the plaintiff”s immediate suspension.
Continue reading

May 5, 2023

NLRB Bars Employers from Including Non-Disparagement Clauses in Severance Agreements

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Workers have the right to organize themselves in order to bargain collectively with their employers and advocate for better working conditions. Federal and New Jersey employment laws protect these rights and prohibit employers from interfering with or retaliating against employees who are engaged in lawful activities. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) adjudicates disputes over alleged violations of federal labor laws. In February 2023, it issued a ruling that invalidates a non-disparagement clause that an employer included in severance agreements for a group of employees it had just laid off. The NLRB found that the employer could not require workers to waive such a large number of legal rights. The following month, the NLRB’s General Counsel (GC) issued a memorandum providing guidance to NLRB directors and officers on how to implement this decision.

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) identifies a broad range of rights enjoyed by workers. This includes “the right to self-organization” and to join or form a labor union for the purpose of collective bargaining. The section also states that workers have the right to engage in “other concerted activities for the purpose of…mutual aid or protection.” The NLRB and the courts have interpreted this as providing rather broad protection of workers’ right to communicate among themselves and with others about various features of employment, such as working conditions and wages.

The case recently before the NLRB involved a hospital and a union representing various service employees. The hospital furloughed numerous employees at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. It made the temporary furlough permanent for eleven union members later that year. Each of these employees received a “Severance Agreement, Waiver and Release” that offered a severance package in exchange for their signature. According to the NLRB’s ruling, the hospital did not inform the union of the furloughs or the severance agreements.
Continue reading

April 28, 2023

New Jersey Appellate Division Reinstates Disability Discrimination Claim in Employment Lawsuit

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Disability discrimination is unlawful under both federal and state laws. Employers may not refuse to hire a job applicant because of a disability, nor may they fire, demote, refuse to promote, or deny various other employment features to an employee. Federal and state laws apply these protections both to individuals with qualifying disabilities and individuals who are perceived as having a disability. A plaintiff asserting a claim for damages under New Jersey employment law has the burden of proving that their employer based their discriminatory act or acts on a qualifying disability. In a case involving perceived disability, the plaintiff must also prove that the employer had this perception. The New Jersey Appellate Division recently allowed a disability discrimination case to proceed. It ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to gather evidence regarding their employer’s perceptions and intent.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) provides a broad definition of “disability” that includes a wide range of physical and psychological conditions. New Jersey courts have long held that the NJLAD’s provisions on disability discrimination apply to perceived disabilities just as much as actual ones. In other words, an employer violates the NJLAD when it believes an employee has a disability and discriminates against them because of that perceived disability.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit described above alleged that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against her because of a perception that she was an alcoholic. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that alcoholism may qualify as a disability under the NJLAD.
Continue reading