Business Law

Published on: August 30, 2026

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege in Workplace Investigations of Sexual Harassment

A key New Jersey employment law issue was recently examined by an appeals Court in the case of C.S. vs Brick Recycling Company. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court examined when communications with attorneys are privileged when those attorneys are examining claims of sexual harassment or discrimination. 4-225x300

C.S.’s Claims

C.S. worked for Brick Recycling Company as a truck driver. He made an internal complaint to Peter Decenzo, the company’s owner and president, that the corporate financial controller, M.R., made unwanted sexual advances toward him, improperly accessed his bank records, and improperly disclosed the information in those records to others.. While M.R. was a company supervisor, she was not C.S.’s supervisor. The following day, DeCenzo told C.S. and M.R. to have no have no further contact with each other. M.R. left an angry note on C.S.’s car, for which DeCenzo admonished her.

Published on: July 17, 2026

New Jersey Real Estate Law Decision Examines Difference Between Analysis of Adverse Possession and Proscriptive Easements

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

It’s easy to think that under New Jersey real estate law, “squatter’s rights” is a thing of the past. However, it is very much alive, although very difficult to prove. There are two similar ways to obtain an interest in property owned by another, through either adverse possession or a prescriptive easement. While the requirements for each are similar are similar, they are still different. These requirements were recently examined in a New Jersey appeals court decision in the case of Shea vs DiPopolo. woods-225x300

Kenneth and Catherine Ann Shea purchased a home on Columbia Turnpike in Florham Park, New Jersey in 2003. The survey showed that their horseshoe shaped driveway, both ends of which connect to Columbia Turnpike, ran onto the edge of the neighboring property. The Shea’s house was built in 1981, and aerial photographs show that the driveway was in use and going over the neighbor’s property since at least April 19, 1990. It was originally gravel, but the Sheas paved it between 2005 and 2007. They .used it until 2021 when their neighbors Romo and Dolores DiPopolo, sent a letter telling them to stop using it and then put a fence up barring their access.

The DiPopolos bought the neighboring property in 2001. It vacant until they built a house there and moved into it in 2016. The DiPopolos also owned the property behind it. They developed that property in 2004 and 2005, using the disputed driveway – which ran on both properties – to move the construction equipment used in the development.

Published on: June 8, 2026

McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC Named to New Jersey Super Lawyers Top 100 List

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC is pleased to announce that Maurice McLaughlin was named to the “Top 100: New Jersey Super Lawyers” list in the 2026 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers*. Maurice has been included on the Super Lawyers list since 2012 before being named to the Top 100 list this year. In addition, Pauline Young was included on the New Jersey Super Lawyers list from 2020-2025. law-firm-2-300x184

Super Lawyers’ selection criteria is as follows. “Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a patented multiphase selection process. Peer nominations and evaluations are combined with independent research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. Since Super Lawyers is intended to be used as an aid in selecting a lawyer, we limit the lawyer ratings to those who can be hired and retained by the public… The final published list represents the top 5 percent of lawyers in the state. The lists are published annually in state and regional editions of Super Lawyers magazines and in inserts and special advertising sections in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers. All attorneys selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers, regardless of year, can be found on SuperLawyers.com.”

Maurice, with Frank Nardi, founded the law firm in 2002, and practices in employment, commercial and construction litigation. He is also a mediator appointed by the Superior Court to mediate civil litigation. Maurice is the author of the book New Jersey Public Employment Law published by Gann Law Books, now in its 14^th edition. Maurice is admitted to the state bars in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, and the United States Supreme Court.

Published on: May 27, 2026

New Jersey Appeals Court Clarifies Identification of Violated Regulations Required under Whistleblower Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Background

John Sloan was an employee of Cape Regional Medical Center and Cape Regional Health System, Inc. (collectively “Cape”), from February 2018 until October 2020, serving as director of plant operations. His duties included making sure that the facility’s maintenance, repair and safety systems were in compliance with their legal requirements.

Sloan made complaints to his supervisors that defendants had not complied with fire-safety regulations by failing to inspect fires extinguishers, exit lights and sprinkler systems (the “fire 6-300x225 complaints”), particularly during the increased patient load and decreased staffing caused by Covid. He also complained about the temperature and humidity levels in the operating rooms and electrical work in the sewage ejector pit (“the safety complaints”). He alleged that he was told to ignore the violations and threatened with discipline if he did not, and that he was yelled at and false accusations were made about his work performance. Eventually he was fired on October 16, 2020. He claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for his complaints about the defendants’ legal and regulatory violations.

Published on: April 21, 2026

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Does Not Apply to Architects, Appeals Court Says’

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Under New Jersey construction law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act applies to most residential and commercial construction projects. It is applicable to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. However, a New Jersey Appeals Court held in a recent decision that architects are not subject to the Consumer Fraud Act because of the “learned professional” exemption.

6-300x225

Background

The Borough of Caldwell contracted with Cozzarelli Cirminiello Architects, LLC for architectural services including design, construction and rehabilitation of Borough-owned facilities. CCA’s invoices were approved by municipal officials before being submitted to and approved by the Council before they were paid. After a new Council was elected, the Borough terminated its contracts with CCA. Caldwell then sued CCA in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Essex County for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Caldwell claimed that CCA failed to perform its services, failed to produce “products,” failed to support the Borough on construction bids, failed to produce construction documents, double billed the Borough, and billed it above the agreed upon rate.

Published on: March 18, 2026

Appeals Court Strikes Down Background Circumstances Rule in Reverse Discrimination Lawsuits Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination in Federal Court

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Background: Anti-Discrimination Statutes and the Background Circumstances Rule

Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination both prohibit employers from illegally discriminating against their employees. Normally the evaluation is straightforward under the McDonnell Douglas Test. However, in the case of reverse discrimination, i.e., where an employer is accused of discriminating against an employee who is in the majority, New Jersey and paterson-pd-john-and-andrew-300x183 many Federal courts imposed a higher burden of proof on the employee. In cases of reverse discrimination, employees in New Jersey state courts and many federal courts had to satisfy the “Background Circumstances Rule,” which requires that the employee prove that he “has been victimized by the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” However, in 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Background Circumstances Rule in Title VII cases in the case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.

The U.S. Supreme Court Steps In

Published on: March 4, 2026

New Jersey Appeals Court Rejects Argument that Public Employee’s Subsequent Employment Relieves Employer from Having to Pay Amounts in Separation Agreement

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Appellate Division examined a town’s termination of payments to its former employee under a separation agreement when the employee became employed by another town.

Background

Alberto Cabrera was the municipal clerk of the Town of Guttenberg, New Jersey. As so often happens, the parties wished to terminate their relationship. They entered into a Separation Agreement which provided that Cabrera would stop performing his duties and go on paid leave beginning on August 18, 2022, and the leave would terminate with his retirement on March 31, 2023. He would be on the payroll and paid his regular salary by the Town through that day. He would continue to get medical benefits through March 31, 2023. The Town would also pay him his accrued but unused vacation, sick, compensatory and personal days for 2022 and 2023. Cabrera agreed to submit a letter requesting this paid leave of absence, which he did the same day. The Town’s Mayor and Council voted to approve the agreement. Cabrera inquired about amending the agreement once, but it was never changed in any way.

Published on: February 17, 2026

New Jersey Appeals Court Examines the Effect of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act on Litigation of Related Non-Sexual Harassment Claims

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act

The New Jersey Arbitration Act and Federal Arbitration Act generally require enforcement of agreements to arbitrate disputes. This extends to the enforcement of arbitration agreements in employment contracts.

However, in response to the #MeToo Movement, Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. The EFAA provided: new-york-county-courthouse-1540991328RMS-300x200

Published on: November 3, 2025

New Jersey Appeals Court Enforces Right of First Refusal in Commercial Contract

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey business law provides that parties to a contract may agree that after closing one party, usually the seller, can have the right to match another offer which a party receives. This is called a “right of first refusal.” This most frequently occurs in contracts for the sale of a business or the sale of real estate, but also often occurs in leases and other contracts as well. A New Jersey appeals court’s decision in the case of PMG New Jersey II, LLC vs Amrit Inc. examined the law regarding New Jersey law regarding contractual rights of first refusal. 6-300x225

Amrit, Inc. Buys a Gas Station and a Decade Later Litigation Ensues

The decision explained that in 2012, the parties entered into a into a Motor Fuel Supply Agreement (MFSA) in connection with Amrit, Inc.’s purchase of a gas station in New Brunswick, New Jersey from PMG New Jersey II, LLC. The MFSA was amended three years later in 2015 to include a provision which provided that if the purchaser received an offer to buy the gas station, PMG had 30 days to give notice that it was exercising its right to purchase the gas station on the same terms and conditions as the new offer; if not it waived this right of first refusal. The MFSA was later amended to last through 2027.

Published on: October 7, 2025

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Damages and Attorneys Fees in Construction Projects Examined by Appeals Court

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey construction law incorporates the damages provisions of the Consumer Fraud Act in residential home improvement construction projects. A New Jersey appeals court recently analyzed the recovery of triple damages and attorneys fees in construction projects under the Consumer Fraud Act, and personal liability for contractors, in two construction law decisions.

Background

Philip Dattolo hired EMC Squared, LLC to construct a new single-family home in Boonton, New Jersey. They signed a written contract. Toward the end of the project, Dattolo selected several house-225x300 additional items to be included. A written change order to the original signed contract was drafted, but the change order was never signed. In January 2020 the home passed final inspections, and EMC’s owner, Edward Morgan, advised Dattolo that he could not continue working on the project. Dattolo refused to pay “one additional cent,” and complained that there were numerous construction defects which would cost him thousands of dollars to remediate.