Labor and Employment Law

Published on: September 17, 2020

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Procedures for Appealing Discipline of State Troopers

A recent New Jersey employment law decision in the case of Matter of Shyner examined the procedures available to New Jersey State Troopers to appeal employer imposed discipline, and the standards which appellate courts will utilize to review disciplinary decisions by the Superintendent of New Jersey State Police.

The Shyner Case.

Dawn Shyner was a lieutenant in the New Jersey State Police. In 2014 she called 911 because of an altercation with her estranged husband; local police responded. No charges were filed, nor was a domestic violence restraining order sought. In accordance with New Jersey State Police protocols, she notified her supervisor and surrendered her weapon. During that meeting her supervisor told her that he did not believe the incident would result in a domestic violence investigation, although undoubtedly an ordinary internal affairs investigation would ensue.

Published on: September 10, 2020

New Jersey Supreme Court Issues Important Employment Law Decision on Employment Contracts Requiring Arbitration of Wage and Hour Claims

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Arafa Case

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Arafa v. Health Express Corporation in a consolidated appeals about a niche question regarding the interplay of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) and the New Jersey Arbitration Act (the “NJAA”) regarding the judge-gavel-1461998219JBc-300x200 enforceability of agreements in employment contracts to arbitrate disputes under New Jersey employment law. The consolidated cases were both brought as class actions by employees whose duties included driving to make deliveries for their employers. In one of the appeals it was clear that the employees were making deliveries outside the state as well as in it, and were therefore engaged in interstate commerce; in the other it was not clear. In both cases the employers argued that the cases were not covered by the FAA, which contains an exemption which provides that the FAA will not apply to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” which the United States Supreme Court has defined to include interstate deliveries. Because the drivers were not covered by the FAA due to the exception, the employers argued, they were covered by the NJAA, which did not contain such an exemption, and the arbitration agreements were therefore enforceable. Thus, the employers argued, the lawsuits in Superior Court should be dismissed and the cases submitted to binding arbitration. The trial judges in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey agreed with the employers and dismissed the suits and ordered them to arbitration. In both cases, the employees separately appealed, and different panels of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court reached different decisions. To resolve the split, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeals.

Why does this matter? If it seems pretty arcane, it has significant real world consequences. First, the employees sued for unpaid overtime under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law because New Jersey law and New Jersey courts are seen – rightly or wrongly – as more friendly to employees than federal court, which of course is why the employers didn’t want the case there. Moreover, arbitration is seen as much more friendly to employers than employees, which is why the two sides were fighting over it.

Published on: August 25, 2020

Appellate Division Issues Important New Jersey Employment Law Decision on Whistleblower Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Employment Law Evidence Issues

Our employment lawyers represent employees and employers in all aspects of New Jersey employment law. One of the most litigated issues is the evidence which an employee must present to demonstrate that retaliation or discrimination was behind an adverse action, such as supreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200 firing or demotion. The Appellate Division recently issued an important decision on the ability of jurors to infer retaliation from circumstantial evidence.

The Yatauro Case

Published on: August 17, 2020

Appellate Division Issues Opinion on Promotion Bypass Appeals Under New Jersey Civil Service Act’s Rule of Three

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Our employment attorneys represent employees in New Jersey Civil Service appeals and disciplinary proceedings. One frequent matter of contention in the New Jersey Civil Service System is bypassing candidates for selection or promotion under the “Rule of Three.”

The Rule of Three

The New Jersey Civil Service Act requires that hiring and promotion must be based on fitness and merit, determined by competitive Civil Service examinations wherever possible. After a test, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission will issue a list of eligible candidates ranked in order of their scores. Hiring and cop promotion must be made according to the eligible candidates’ ranks on the list. However, an exception exists. The Rule of Three allows New Jersey Civil Service employers to bypass eligible candidates ranked higher on hiring and promotion lists in favor of lower ranked candidates so long as they select one of the top three eligible candidates remaining on the list. After each decision to hire or promote, the Rule of Three evaluation begins all over again. So, for example, if the first candidate is selected, the employer may then select any of the candidates ranked second through fourth for the second spot.

Published on: July 10, 2020

Chancery Division in Bergen County Issues Important New Jersey Employment Law Decision on Appeals of Tenure Arbitration Awards by Teaching Staff Members

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Chancery Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court recently issued a public employment law decision in the case of Petrella v. The Hackensack Board of Education which is important for New Jersey teaching staff members because it examined the grounds for overturning an arbitration decision on tenure charges under the TEACHNJ Act. judge-gavel-1461998219JBc-300x200

Under New Jersey employment law, tenure confers many benefits on teaching staff members. A teacher or other teaching staff member, such as an athletic director, who has tenure may not dismissed or have their pay reduced for any reason other than incapacity, inefficiency, conduct unbecoming, “or other just cause.” It also gives teaching staff members appeal rights if tenure charges are filed against them, which includes binding arbitration under the TEACHNJ Act.

In the Petrella case, tenure charges were filed against a tenured athletic director for:

Published on: July 6, 2020

Effect of Criminal Charges and Disposition on New Jersey Public Employees

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey employment law provides that government employees may be fired for conviction of a crime, and for many crimes they must be fired. However, if they are exonerated they may be reinstated to their position. They may be subject to further discipline, but if they are not they may also receive back pay, police-hoboken-train-station seniority and benefits for the period of their suspension.

Suspension During Criminal Charges

New Jersey Civil Service Commission regulations provide that an employee’s conviction of a crime is grounds for discipline. An employee suspended while a criminal complaint or indictment is pending must be served with a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (known as a “PNDA”). The PNDA should include a statement that forfeiture of the employee’s position may result, and that the employee may choose to consult with an attorney. In this case representation by an attorney is always advisable. Within five days of receipt of the PNDA, the employee may request a departmental hearing. If no request is made (within five days or an agreed upon extension) the employer may issue a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action (an “FNDA”).

Published on: June 26, 2020

United States Supreme Court Holds that Federal Employment Law Bans Discrimination Against LGBT Employees – Just as New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination Already Does

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination because of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes illegal sex discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This ruling applies nationwide, and means that employers may not fire, demote, harass, refuse to hire, or take any other negative action against employees because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. This has long been the state of us-supreme-court-300x200 New Jersey employment law under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination

Title VII and the Bostock Case

Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees because of sex. Title VII specifically provides that

Published on: June 20, 2020

New Jersey Supreme Court Issues Important Decision on Ability of Union to Bargain Away Benefits of Public Employees

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued an important employment law decision in the case of Barila v. Board of Education of Cliffside Park regarding the ability of unions to bargain away employee benefits enjoyed under prior contracts. teacher-300x224

Benefits, such as time off, are terms and conditions of employment which may be bargained for in collective negotiations. (The term “collective negotiations” is used in the public sector instead of “collective bargaining” because, unlike in the private sector, government employees do not have the right to strike under New Jersey employment law.) The resulting contract (or “collective negotiation agreement”) sets the terms and conditions of employment, provided the parties have bargained in good faith and the employees receive the minimum levels required by statute.

In this case, under prior contracts between the Cliffside Park Board of Education and the teachers union, including the most recent one in effect from 2012 through 2015, longer term employees could carry over and be paid for their unused sick days up to $25,000. Not all employees could do so, however, because the New Jersey Legislature had passed a law limiting payment for unused sick time to $15,000 for employees who commenced work on May 21, 2010 or thereafter. The statutory limit did not apply to employees who started work before May 21, 2010.

Published on: June 6, 2020

New Jersey Civil Service Layoffs Rights

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

In the tough economic times brought on by COVID-19, many governors and veterans-300x200 mayors, including New Jersey’s Governor Murphy, have said that widespread layoffs may be necessary if federal assistance is not forthcoming. Our attorneys represent New Jersey Civil Service employees, and we see the struggles they are facing. Given this, we thought the time was right to review the layoff rights available under New Jersey Civil Service law.

Layoffs

A layoff is the termination of a permanent employee’s employment because of economic reasons. Demotions or reduction of hours for economic reasons are also treated as layoffs, triggering the rights and procedures applicable to layoffs.

Published on: June 2, 2020

Ensuring Maximum Forgiveness on Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Funds Under the CARES Act

by Pauline M.K. Young

As a result of the Novel Coronavirus (“COVID-19”), the federal government has passed significant legislation in an attempt to provide relief to businesses small-business-300x215 struggling with economic hardships as a result of widespread closures and stay-at-home orders. One major part of these governmental actions includes the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (also known as the “CARES Act”) on April 2, 2020.

The CARES Act provides for approximately $2 trillion in 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. Of this, approximately $350 billion was allocated to the CARES Act’s Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP). When that money was almost immediately sought by the millions of businesses seeking assistance, an additional $175 billion was additionally allocated.

The PPP limited its funding to each company to two and a half times the company’s average monthly payroll costs. While the PPP is considered a loan program, the funds may largely (or entirely) be forgiven as long as the company uses the funds for approved expenses. The details of exactly which expenses would be considered approved and how these funds could be used has been the subject of much uncertainty over the past several weeks. Indeed, the SBA (Small Business Administration) has posted additional rules and guidance on the matter more than 10 times in two months.