Fisher Phillips • September 21, 2016
On September 13, 2016, the Morristown Town Council passed Ordinance No. 35-2016, which will soon require all private employers in Morristown to provide paid sick time to employees. The ordinance goes into effect on October 4, 2016 for non-unionized employees, and at the expiration of any collective bargaining agreement currently in effect for unionized employees.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 21, 2016
The New Jersey State Assembly is considering a bill (A-4119) that would amend the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) to prohibit an employer from seeking compensation information on a candidate. If passed, the legislation will affect the hiring process in New Jersey, including requiring changes to application materials, interview questions, and negotiations over compensation.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 19, 2016
Private-sector employees who work at least 80 hours during a calendar year in Morristown, New Jersey, will be entitled to paid sick leave under Ordinance No. 35-2016, passed by the Morristown Town Council on September 13, 2016.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • September 19, 2016
On September 14, 2016, Morristown, New Jersey became New Jersey’s 13th municipality to require private employers to provide paid sick time to employees.1 The Morristown ordinance takes effect on October 4, 2016, leaving employers little time to modify policies and ensure compliance.
XpertHR • September 07, 2016
On September 2, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie gave 120 days' required notice of intent to end the state's 40-year-old reciprocal income tax withholding agreement with Pennsylvania. If New Jersey follows through, the agreement will terminate at the end of 2016, affecting employers and employees in both states. New Jersey's impending action, however, is still in an early phase and the situation could change by the end of the year.
FordHarrison LLP • August 17, 2016
Executive Summary: Just when employers thought New Jersey's Supreme Court could not expand the state's whistleblower law further (as we reported last summer), the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) once again has been broadened. Now the Court has held that an employee governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and allegedly terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected activity concerning wages regulated by the CBA may bring a CEPA claim in New Jersey state court —rather than pursue the same claim for relief before the National Labor Relations Board. In so doing, the Court's decision erases any doubt CEPA likely is the most far-reaching whistleblowing statute in the U.S.
Ogletree Deakins • August 16, 2016
In Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad, (A-19-14, June 21, 2016), the New Jersey Supreme Court broadly interpreted the prohibition against marital status discrimination in the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to protect a person who has separated from his or her spouse and is in the process of getting a divorce. In the case at hand, a plaintiff was discharged after he informed his supervisor he was engaged in an affair with a coworker and that he and his wife (another coworker) were about to commence divorce proceedings. Fearing there would be an “ugly divorce,” the supervisor took the matter to the company’s board of directors, which terminated the plaintiff’s employment.
Fisher Phillips • July 25, 2016
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently interpreted the state’s antidiscrimination law in an expansive manner, concluding that a broad spectrum of individuals can file suit and claim that their employers unfairly discriminated against them on the basis of their marital status. Not only will plaintiffs who believe they were targeted for mistreatment on the basis of their current marriage be able to find refuge under the law, but also will those engaged, separated, divorced, widowed, or even those who have never been married.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • June 28, 2016
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently overturned the longstanding policy of permitting employers and employees to agree to a shortened timeframe for an employee to file a discrimination suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The case, Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., concerned the enforceability of a shortened statute of limitations contained in an employment application. The language in dispute, written in all capital letters and bold font, stated, “I agree that any claim or lawsuit relating to my service with [Defendant] must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. I waive any statute of limitations to the contrary.” The plaintiff signed the application and began his employment.
FordHarrison LLP • June 20, 2016
Executive Summary: The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that employment agreements shortening the time in which an employee may file a discrimination claim against his or her employer under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) are unenforceable. In a decision issued June 15, 2016, the Court unanimously ruled (6-0) that a six-month time limit for filing claims contained in an employment application was unenforceable and did not bar the plaintiff's disability discrimination claims. See Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., No. A-27-14 (June 15, 2016).