New Jersey Lawyers Blog

Published on: May 24, 2021

Appellate Division Rules that New Jersey Employment Law Ignores Titles When Determining Whether Public School Secretaries Have Acquired Tenure

Attaining tenure is a milestone for public school employees. Under New Jersey employment law, tenure carries legal protections against termination or discipline without just cause, and requires formal tenure charges and the right to challenge those charges through a hearing and appeal process. These bully-3233568__340-300x272 protections are extremely valuable.

Much literature has been written about tenure requirements for teachers under New Jersey employment law. However, New Jersey employment law also provides that other public school employees may obtain tenure protection as well. The Appellate Division addressed the acquisition of tenure for school board secretaries and administrative assistants in the case of Saylor v. Board of Education of the Town of West New York.

Background

Published on: May 17, 2021

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Ramifications of Settlement of Police Officer Disciplinary Charges

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Police officer discipline has significant ramifications under New Jersey employment law, whether the officer is in a civil service or non-civil service police department. These extend beyond the ramifications of discipline for other public and private employees in New Jersey. The police-1714956__340-300x200 Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court recently examined some of these ramifications in its opinion in the case of Gilbert vs. Warren County Prosecutor.

Background

Jefferey C. Gilbert was a police officer with the Mansfield Township Police Department, a non-civil service jurisdiction. He settled department disciplinary charges arising from alleged misconduct during a DUI investigation. Gilbert accepted a six day suspension without pay to resolve all the disciplinary action against him, with the provision that the record of the discipline would remain in his personnel file and could be used as evidence if he received future disciplinary charges for the purposes of progressive discipline.

Published on: May 6, 2021

New Jersey Employment Law Opinion Examines Classification of Employees and Independent Contractors

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey employment law governs the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors. The classification is important and fact sensitive. It has far reaching consequences. The Appellate Division recently issued a published opinion in imagesCAWQ89PS the case of East Bay Drywall, LLC vs. the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, which examined some of these issues and provides guidance for both employers and employees.

Background

The Department of Labor and Workforce Development administers the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation and Temporary Disability Insurance Laws. It collects revenues from employers and employees to fund these benefits. However, “employers” only need to make contributions for their “employees,” not for independent contractors. Therefore, there is an economic incentive for businesses to classify workers as contractors rather than employees. However, misclassification can trigger severe consequences.

Published on: May 3, 2021

Appellate Decision Explains New Jersey Construction Lien Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey construction law opinion in Site Enterprises Inc. vs. NRG Rema, LLC highlighted several important areas of the New Jersey Construction Lien Law.

The New Jersey Construction Lien Law

The New Jersey Construction Lien Law replaced the Mechanic’s Lien law, and made it easier for contractors, subcontractors and suppliers construction-machine-3412240__340-300x202 to use construction liens to enforce payment for their contract work on construction projects.

Published on: April 21, 2021

New Jersey Employment Law Takeaways from Recent Decision on New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Some important New Jersey employment law issues were explored in a recent opinion issued by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court concerning the New supreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200 Jersey Law Against Discrimination in the case of Kazaba versus Randolph Township Board of Education.

The Kazaba Case

Charles Kazaba sued the Randolph Township Board of Education for age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination in Law Division of the State Superior Court for allegedly taking discriminatory actions against him because of his age. He was a security for the Board for more than 21 years and had no disciplinary record. For many years Kazaba was the only security guard, but at some point the Board hired additional, younger security guards with prior law enforcement experience (these were referred to as the “Ram Guards” after the high school’s mascot). At sixty years of age he was the oldest security guard. He claimed that his supervisors took a course of or actions favoring the younger Ram Guards and making his job more difficult because he was older.

Published on: April 6, 2021

New Jersey’s New Mandate for Food Waste Recycling

by Pauline M.K. Young

On April 14, 2020, New Jersey Governor Murphy signed a food waste recycling bill (A2371) aimed at requiring large producers of food waste in New Jersey to recycle their unused food. This mandate is schedule to go into effect on dump-truck-1396587__340-300x215 approximately October 14, 2021.

The law applies to “large food waste generators” which are defined as “any commercial food wholesaler, distributor, industrial food processor, supermarket, resort, conference center, banquet hall, restaurant, educational or religious institution, military installation, prison, hospital, medical facility, or casino that produces at least 52 tons per year of food waste.” Any large food waste generator that is located within 25 miles of a food recycling facility will be required to separate out food waste from other solid waste and send the food waste to the food recycling facility. Alternatively, these generators can compost their food waste (or other authorized anaerobic or aerobic digestion) on-site, or use other recycling alternatives.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (known as the “DEP”) lists food waste recycling facilities to include Trenton Renewable Power, LLC (Trenton, NJ), and Waste Management Core (Elizabeth, NJ). Therefore, a significant amount of generators in New Jersey will likely be considered to be within the 25 miles. Those outside the 25 miles range or with waste which is not accepted by the food recycling facility within their range may dispose of the waste as they normally would with other solid waste.

Published on: March 22, 2021

Commercial Versus Residential New Jersey Real Estate Transactions

by Jennifer C. Meusel

At first glance, both commercial and residential New Jersey real estate transactions seem to be quite similar. A contract is executed, title work must be checked, lender requirements must be met and the closing must be completed. But, from the initial offer through closing on the transaction, there are significant house2-300x223 differences.

A commercial real estate transaction usually starts with a letter of intent. This is a non-binding preliminary offer which states the basic terms of the anticipated contract and may include a non-disclosure agreement to give the parties security in the knowledge that the information provided will remain private. Under New Jersey real estate law, commercial real estate contracts are not subject to the three day attorney review requirements which control residential real estate transactions. Because of this, the contract will be prepared by one of the real estate attorneys and then negotiated and finalized before it is executed. Once it is executed all parties are bound by its terms.

The contract will usually include due diligence clause during which the purchaser is permitted to conduct inspections of the property and the records related to it. These Inspections can be quite detailed, particularly for industrial property, and can include structural and system inspections, environmental contamination inspections (which range from tank sweeps to phase 2 environmental inspections and compliance with the Industrial Site Recovery Act (known as “ISRA”), reviewing the history of the property, including the environmental history, investigating the zoning rules and regulations against the purchasers’ intended use of the property, performing title searches and searches with the New Jersey Division of Taxation to insure that the Seller is paid current on taxes, and examining records of income and expenses related to the property and/or its leases and tenants. Once due diligence has been completed and the purchaser accepts the property in its current condition, or the parties agrees on repairs, remediation or credits in lieu thereof, the next step is purchaser obtaining approval of any financing, if financing is involved.

Published on: March 15, 2021

State Supreme Court Finds Promissory Estoppel Viable New Jersey Employment Law Claim for Withdrawal of Job Offer, Including Those to Investment Advisors

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A frequent problem in New Jersey employment law occurs when a business offers someone a job without a contract, that person then quits their current employment, the business rescinds the offer, and the employee is left without a job. There is no contract, so the employee cannot sue for breach of contract. What can she do? In an important New Jersey employment law decision, the State Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb v. Solimine that the employee signature-3113182__340-300x200 has a viable claim for promissory estoppel and may recover “reliance damages” from the prospective employer based on what she would have made had she not quit in reliance on the promise and stayed at her prior job. Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine which provides that a party should be responsible for the consequences when a promisee relied on its promise and suffers damages when the promisor fails to perform.

Background

David Solimine offered Jed Goldfarb a job managing his family’s investment portfolio. Goldfarb would receive an annual salary of $250,000-$275,000, plus ten to twenty percent of profits made because of his efforts or advice. Neither the offer nor a contract were ever put in writing. However, Goldfarb left his current job as a financial analyst (where he had made between $308,000 and $466,000 per year) in reliance on Solomine’s promise of employment. After Goldfarb quit, Solimine withdrew the offer and Goldfarb found himself unemployed.

Published on: March 12, 2021

The New Jersey Supreme Court Considers the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for the First Time in Police Pregnancy Discrimination Matter

by Robert Chewning, Esq.

On March 9, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an important employment law decision on pregnancy discrimination in the case of Delanoy v. Township of Ocean, which confirms the distinct causes of actions that may be brought and how they should be brought under the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“NJPWFA”).

Background

A female police officer for the Township of Ocean brought a pregnancy discrimination case against the Township based on standing operating procedures (“SPOs”) and the Township’s treatment, which she alleged discriminated against her in violation of the NJPWFA and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).

Published on: March 9, 2021

Federal Appeals Court Rules that Psychological Examinations for Applicants for Law Enforcement Officer Positions Cannot Be Used to Discriminate Against Qualified Applicants

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A Federal Appeals Court’s recent precedential decision in the case of Gibbs v. City of Pittsburgh may have profound implications for New Jersey civil service appeals from psychological disqualification of law enforcement officer applicants.

Background

Christopher Gibbs applied to be a police officer with the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Police Department. He was an honorably discharged Marine and had been accepted for employment with five other law enforcement agencies. Similar to the practice in New Jersey and as required by Pennsylvania state law, after he was found otherwise qualified Pittsburgh offered Gibbs an offer of employment conditioned upon passing an examination to determine whether he was cop psychologically fit for the job. Gibbs had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). The examining doctor found him unfit because of his ADHD. The psychologists conducting the examination ignored the fact that Gibbs’s ADHD was under control, that five other departments had found him psychologically fit, that he had unblemished records as a police officer and a Marine, and they never explained how Gibbs’s ADHD would interfere with his ability to perform his duties as a police officer.