Articles Posted in Business Law

Published on:

by

As a result of the coronavirus (“COVID19”), the federal government has taken significant action to provide relief to individuals and business struggling with civil-service-jobs-1-300x200economic hardships as a result of lost business during widespread closures and stay-at-home orders. The first major legislation passed by the federal government was the Families First Coronavirus Response Act which provided job protection and paid leave provisions.  Now, the government has recently passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (also known as the “CARES Act”).

The CARES Act provides for approximately $2 trillion in relief aid through expanded unemployment assistance, individual relief checks, tax credits, loans, and grants to businesses which were closed or significantly effected by COVID-19, and funding to hospitals and health care facilities.

Small businesses in particular which are struggling with the current situation economically should look into applying for one or more of these relief options.  For example, a business may apply for a $10,000 immediate advance to cover emergency costs that they are unable to pay because of the COVID-19 situation.  Expenses covered would, of course, have to be legitimate business costs such as payroll and utilities.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In the time of the Coronavirus (COVID19), many people are concerned about the likelihood of needing to file for unemployment benefits in New Jersey in the near future.

Certainly, many people will be in need of New Jersey State assistance in 2020 and beyond as a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its effects.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Coronavirus be damned, McLaughlin & Nardi is open to help the people and businesses we served for years get through this crisis, and we’ll work with new ones too. This too shall pass, but in the meantime we are here to help you.

Governor Murphy has indicated that he will be shutting down all nonessential businesses. We think we are essential, but if he tells us to close our doors so we will, but we will not close our firm. We are set up to operate remotely, and will be fully functional to help you during this time of need.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Truck, Transportation, Vehicle
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) announced a new rule establishing a database for information regarding violations of drug and alcohol testing regulations by commercial motor vehicle drivers. While the rule went into effect in 2017, the requirement for FMCSA-regulated employers to begin searching and reporting on this database did not take effect until January 6, 2020.

Therefore, regulated employers are now required to report information regarding any violations of the DOT’s drug and alcohol regulations through the FMCSA’s database (called “Clearinghouse”).  This will allow employers to identify drivers who are prohibited from operating a vehicle because of prior violations.

“Regulated employers” include employers in the trucking or transportation industry who either hold a Commercial Driver’s License (“CDL”) themselves or whose employees hold a CDL, and who operate a commercial motor vehicle(s) in any state which has (1) a gross vehicle weight of 26,001 pounds or more, or (2) is designed to carry 16 or more passengers (including the driver), or (3) is involved in transporting hazardous materials.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

People Of Uganda, People, Sad, Emotional
The Wrestling Incident

During an incident on December 19, 2018, a referee required an African American wrestler at Buena Regional High School choose between cutting his dreadlocks or forfeiting his wrestling match.  Rather than forfeit the match, the wrestler chose to cut his hair.  Because the incident had indicia of being racially motivated, or at least having a racially disparate impact, and allegations of racism by the same referee had previously been made, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) and the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (known as NJSIAA, the Association self-regulates high school sports in New Jersey) begin a joint investigation.  The NJSIAA eventually suspended the referee for two years.

The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights’ Guidance

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Whistleblower, Clock, Read, Hours
When facing claims of retaliation for reports on objections about discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination or Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (or for whistleblowing under New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act), courts are often faced with the situation where there is no direct evidence in the form of an admission, document, email or tape recording.  Therefore, when examining whether an employer took an action because of retaliation, employees are often forced to rely upon circumstantial evidence.  One of the strongest types of circumstantial evidence in cases where the employee alleges she was retaliated against because of her objections about discrimination is the amount of time which elapsed between the objection and the employer’s adverse action.  However, this is not the sole element which courts will consider – nothing happens in a vacuum.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently examined just such a situation in a case about Title VII retaliation allegation in the case of Jessica Harrison-Harper v. Nike, Inc., d/b/a/ Converse, Inc. (The Third Circuit hears Federal appeals from the courts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the United States Virgin Islands).

In that case, Jessica Harrison-Harper was an employee of Nike and manager at a Converse retail store.  She was hired in July 2014.  During the first several months of her employment numerous complaints were received about Harisson-Harper.  For example, a customer complained about her refusal to accept the return of a pair of shoes bought at the store.  Nike received multiple complaints about Harrison-Harper from her employees about her mismanagement and demeanor, and also from a neighboring Nike store.  There was a complaint that Harrison-Harper violated a family discount policy.  She was counseled regarding failure to document employee time and attendance issues, and about her plan to rehire an employee she had previously fired for calling a subordinate a “bitch.”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

New Home, Construction, For Sale, Buy
In October 2019, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued an opinion in the case of Becker v. Ollie Solcum & Son, Inc., examining the enforceability of an arbitration clause in a construction project.  The decision continued the trend in New Jersey of limiting enforcement of arbitration agreements, particularly where one party is a customer.

The case arose from a dispute over a residential construction project. Robert and Catherine Becker entered into a contract with Ollie Slocum & Son, Inc. (“Slocum”) to build a new home for them for $1,850,000.  Under the contract, the project was to be completed in no more than 52 weeks after excavation work started.  Substantial completion was actually about one and a half years late.  The Beckers sued Slocum in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey over the delay and alleged construction defects including water penetration and deterioration of the outdoor decking, siding, and finishing.

The contract, which contained a clause requiring arbitration of disputes, stated:

Continue reading
Published on:

by

American, Bills, Business, Cheque
In the case of Secretary of United States Department of Labor vs. Bristol Excavating, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, recently issued an important, precedential opinion on when payments by third-parties need to be included by employers in the calculation of their employees’ overtime pay rates.

Bristol Excavating, Inc. (Bristol) is a small excavation contractor.  Bristol was a subcontract for Talisman Energy, Inc., a large producer of natural gas.  Bristol provided Talisman with equipment, labor and services at Talisman’s drilling sites.  Bristol’s employees often worked more than 40 hours per week, and Bristol paid them “overtime,” or one and a half times the regular hourly rate which Bristol normally paid them (“time and a half”) for all the hours they worked over 40 hours in one week.

Talisman offered workers at its sites – not just its own employees – separate bonuses rewarding them for safety, efficiency and productively measured by completion of work.  Bristol’s employees asked Bristol if they could participate.  Bristol agreed, and also agreed to do the administrative work.  This administrative work included paying the bonuses through Bristol’s payroll, and taking out all applicable tax withholdings.  Bristol did not include these bonuses in its calculation for overtime pay for its employees because it was not Bristol’s money with which the employees were being paid.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Refugees, Economic Migrants

Governor Murphy signed New Jersey’s Equal Pay Act into law in 2018.  The NJEPA  takes a necessary step in making pay discrepancies in the workplace more transparent with the hopes that this will address the pay differential between white men minorities, and women.  Essentially, it bars any penalty to any employee for requesting or disclosing information regarding any employee’s job title, rate of compensation, benefits, race, gender, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic when the purpose of the inquiry or disclosure to investigate the possibility of discriminatory treatment.  (While the NJEPA was originally intended to address inequitable pay for women, it was expanded to cover all protected classes of people.)

This allows for employees to obtain information which previously (and even now) is largely safeguarded by employers as “private” in order to determine whether they are being discriminated against based upon a protected classification.   Any employer “policy” which forbids discussing compensation in the workplace could be considered void by the law.

The NJEPA amended New Jersey’s Laws Against Discrimination to enable the use of the protections of that statute. The NJEPA also specifically makes it unlawful to pay employees in protected classes a different rate of compensation when performing substantially similar work considering skill, effort, and responsibilities. Differentials may still exist when based on seniority, merit, education, productivity, experience, and other legitimate business reasons. The Act also allows expands upon the LAD’s typical 2-year statute of limitations by setting forth that limitation period restarts each time the employee receives unequal compensation resulting from a discriminatory decision or practice.  The employee may also recover up to 6 years of back pay as a result of a violation by the employer.  Additionally, the employee may receive treble damages – meaning that they may recover three times the monetary damages awarded as a result of the pay discrepancy.

Continue reading
Contact Information
37 Vreeland Ave
Totowa, NJ 07512
Phone: (973) 890-0004
Fax: (973) 256-3641

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design