New Jersey Lawyers Blog

Published on: February 5, 2020

New Jersey Civil Service Law: Major Discipline Versus Minor Discipline

Discipline is a major component of New Jersey’s Civil Service system. Discipline under New Jersey Civil Service law is either “major” or “minor.”

Major Discipline

The main procedural consequence of the difference major discipline and minor discipline is that major discipline can be appealed to the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, while minor discipline can only be challenged in the Superior Court of New Jersey. Major discipline is civil-servcie-1800s-300x165 defined as a suspension or fine of more than five days. Major discipline includes removal, disciplinary demotion, and suspension or fine for more than five working days. The touchstone for all civil service disciplinary procedures, however, is that “The theme of fairness threads its way through the notice, hearing, and right of appeal provisions of our Civil Service Act, and finds particular pertinence in those sections requiring that the causes for [discipline, including] removal constituting ‘just cause’ be enumerated with specificity.”

Published on: February 4, 2020

New Jersey Civil Service Discipline

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

No discussion of New Jersey employment law would be complete without New Jersey’s Civil Service System, which governs all state government employees, and employees of twenty of New Jersey’s twenty-one counties, and the majority of its municipalities.

As far back as 1961, the Appellate D new-york-county-courthouse-1540991328RMS-300x200 ivision gave a cogent summary of the disciplinary procedures in New Jersey’s Civil Service Act, which is worth quoting ver batim.

Disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant are not only an attempt to determine the status of a particular individual; they are a statutorily authorized action to redress a wrong committed against the people of the State by one in whom the public trust has been officially reposed. The proceedings are therefore penal, or at least Quasi-penal, in nature, and deeply embedded constructional principles, supported by fundamental notions of fairness, dictate that in such an action the statute or regulation defining the alleged violation be construed to comport with the fair meaning of the language used. The theme of fairness threads its way through the notice, hearing, and right of appeal provisions of our Civil Service Act, and finds particular pertinence in those sections requiring that the causes for removal constituting ‘just cause’ be enumerated with specificity. The governing consideration, that one be fairly and completely advised of the nature of the charges against him, loses all effectiveness if it is not reinforced by a requirement that the proscribed activities and contingencies warranting disciplinary proceedings be set forth with reasonable particularity and construed accordingly.

Published on: January 31, 2020

New Drug and Alcohol Reporting Requirements for Transportation Companies in 2020

by Pauline M.K. Young

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.

Published on: January 30, 2020

New Jersey Solid Waste A-901 Process

by Pauline M.K. Young

Hello, my name is Pauline Young, I am one of the partners here at the law firm of McLaughlin & Nardi and I am here today to discuss solid waste transportation also known as A-901 licensing.

Waste haulers are often surprised to learn of the extent of regulation in the industry in New Jersey. This is because in most states, waste transporters are not required to obtain a license in order to operate their business. New York City is one of the exceptions to that as well as New Jersey, but in most states, including Pennsylvania and Connecticut there is little to no licensing or registration requirements at all for solid waste haulers. However, because of New Jersey’s unfortunate history of illegal dumping and related criminal activity, the State has imposed a complex regulatory system to address these issues.

Published on: January 30, 2020

Background on the Development and Reasons Behind New Jersey’s Civil Service System

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

There are many people who complain that Civil Service is a terrible hindrance to efficient government. Managers complain that Civil civil-case Service rules hinder their ability to run their organizations by hiring, firing and imposing discipline as they believe is best. Citizens often complain Civil Service makes it too hard to get rid of “bad apples.” Employees complain that Civil Service makes promotions and transfers too difficult. Applicants complain that the Civil Service system makes it too hard to get hired. All these criticisms are valid, as far as the go. However, they miss the mark because they focus on the trees but miss the forest. New Jersey’s Civil Service System was adopted to combat some real and grave problems with state and local government. Without Civil Service these problems would continue today unchecked. Civil Service isn’t perfect, but New Jersey is a far better place because of it.

New Jersey has a long history of government corruption; it is by no means a new phenomenon. This included a “spoils system” rewarding the winners of elections with the ability to award jobs to their supporters, outright bribery, political favoritism, nepotism and outright discrimination in hiring and keeping government jobs. It was a disgrace.

In 1908 the early twentieth century Progressive Movement led New Jersey to adopt its first Civil Service laws, and to establish the Civil Service Commission to regulate Civil Service practices. Then, in 1947, a constitutional convention was held at Rutgers University, in which a new state Constitution was adopted. The goal of the constitutional convention was to reform many areas of New Jersey’s state and local governments. One area it specifically addressed was Civil Service. Article VII, section 1 of the New Jersey Constitution of 1947 provided that:

Published on: January 29, 2020

New Jersey Bans Discrimination Based on Hair Styles

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

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

Published on: January 22, 2020

Appeals From Psychological or Medical Disqualification of Applicants for Law Enforcement or Firefighters Positions

by McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC

Good afternoon. We are here today to talk about removal from eligible lists because of failure to pass a psychological exam.

The way the hiring process for firefighters and law enforcement officers in civil service goes in New Jersey is that first there is a job opening. It’s posted. Then the applicant will submit an application and take a test for the job.

Published on: January 15, 2020

Appellate Division Addresses Jurisdiction for Appeals of Tenure Charges Under TEACHNJ Act

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Employee Choices for Challenging Discipline

In a recent unpublished decision, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court addressed the employment law issue of jurisdiction for appealing discipline of tenured school employees.

When a New Jersey government employee faces discipline, there are several avenues for relief depending on the nature of the alleged wrong by the employer and the relief sought. If the alleged violation is one of constitutional rights, discrimination, or whistleblowing retaliation, the employee can sue in New Jersey state or federal court, or appeal in an administrative forum. T school-bus-1-300x200 he choice will depend on the relief sought. If the employee does not want to continue working for the employer or does not care about correcting the discipline, but rather only cares about collecting money damages, then she would sue in court (New Jersey state courts and New Jersey law provide greater procedural and substantive advantages for employees, so they usually file in the Superior Court rather than federal court). If the employee is more concerned about getting her job back or correcting the discipline, often the administrative route (which can also provide back pay) is the best choice. When there are no issues of constitutional rights, or discrimination or retaliation, then the administrative route is the only option.

Published on: January 14, 2020

Appellate Division Issues First Published Opinion on the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

New Jersey employment law has long been in the forefront of protecting employees’ civil rights baby-feet and prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. While Congress did not pass Title VII until 1964, the Legislature passed the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination in 1945. Since then the LAD has been expanded to protect more types of workers from discrimination because of who they are and give them a wider array of rights and protections. Most recently, in 2014 the Legislature passed the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, again which amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, this time to prohibit discrimination against pregnant workers, and to require reasonable accommodation for physical arising from pregnancy, recovery from childbirth, and breastfeeding. It prohibited employers from penalizing employees for being pregnant.

The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court recently issued the first published opinion interpreting the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in the case of Kathleen J. Delanoy v. Township of Ocean.

Published on: January 13, 2020

McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC Attorneys Successfully Reversed a Decision to Remove an Applicant from a Civil Service List for Appointment as a Jersey City Police Officer

by Robert Chewning, Esq.

Police Car, White Male, 3D Model
On December 6, 2019, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission recently reviewed and rescinded its September 5, 2018 decision which removed an applicant’s name from an eligible list for Jersey City police officer. The case was argued by Maurice W. McLaughlin, Esq., and Robert K. Chewning, Esq.

After the Civil Service Commission made its September 5, 2018 decision, the applicant was required to file an appeal in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. On appeal, the applicant argued that the Civil Service Commission’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and constituted an abuse of discretion based on the evidence which established the applicant’s Jersey City residence prior to the August 31, 2016 announced closing date through the date until the present.

The Appellate Division remanded the case to the Civil Service Commission to review the factual record and reconsider its prior decision. On remand, the Civil Service Commission found: (1) that appellant had established by a preponderance of the evidence that he had lived in Jersey City as of the August 31, 2016 closing date; and (2) that the Civil Service Commission had previously erred in reviewing relevant documents including applicant’s motor vehicle address change form, driver’s license, and lease agreement. A copy of the New Jersey Civil Service Commission’s decision can be found here.