Published on:

An appellate court recently examined the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in New Jersey construction contracts in the case of Konopka vs. Brown’s Heating, Cooling, Plumbing.

5-225x300

Background

Konopka hired Brown’s as a contractor to install a Carrier gas furnace in his home.  Brown was to supply labor and materials in exchange for the homeowner paying $19,800. The contract provided that change orders had to be in writing.  One-third of the contract price was payable on signing, one-third when work started, and one-third upon completion.  The homeowner paid the first installment.  The job started on August 26, 2015.  The homeowner had not yet paid the second installment, but the contractor wanted to work with him.  However, on September 9, 2023, Brown’s sent an email which terminated the contract.  The Court explained that:

Published on:

New Jersey whistleblower retaliation lawsuits turn on the question of evidence.  This is a frequent area of dispute in New Jersey employment law.  A New Jersey appeals court recently examined the evidence necessary to establish a claim of whistleblower retaliation under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, New Jersey’s Whistleblower Law, in the case of Carol Smith vs. Konica Minolta Business7-300x225 Solutions U.S.A., Inc.

Background

Carol Smith worked for Konica Minolta Business Solutions, U.S.A., Inc. (“KMBS”) as a sales representative selling business document management technology and solutions for fourteen years.  She worked out of KMBS’s Iselin office.  She used her own personal laptop throughout her employment.

Published on:

One of the most difficult problems in New Jersey construction law for contractors and subcontractors is getting paid.  Fortunately, a powerful remedy exists in the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act.  A recent appellate court decision examined frameup-225x300the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act in the case of Jo-Med Contracting Corp. vs. City of Linden.

Background

The City of Linden contacted Jo-Med to submit a bid for emergency repair work on approximately 20 feet of sewer repair, together with approximately 30 feet of related curb replacement.  Jo-Med submitted a bid for $25,000 based on the job description provided by the City engineer; the bid stated that the cost would be higher if Jo-Med ran into unforeseen problems not apparent in the City’s description, in which case it would bill the City on a time and materials basis.  Jo-Med was awarded the contract.  The City’s engineer told Jo-Med’s owner that he would “work with him for additional charges to finish the work.”

Published on:

New Jersey employment law requires that employees must be paid at regular intervals, at least twice per month.  The proposition that employees should be paid for the time that they work does not seem to be illogical.  However, litigation over non-payment of wages is all toous-supreme-court-300x200 common.  The New Jersey Appellate Division recently addressed one of the laws behind this issue in the case of Veronica Villalobos v. Beast Coast Moving Limited Liability Company.

Background

Veronica Vilalobos and Joe Esquijarosa brought suit against their employer, Beast Coast Moving Limited Liability Company, for violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, sitting in Bergen County.

Published on:

The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court recently examined the use of the “Rule of Three” in New Jersey civil service list bypass appeals in the case of In the Matter of Antonio Salters, Fire Fighter, Township of Hillside.

Backgroundsupreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200

Salters applied to become a firefighter for the Township of Hillside, New Jersey.  He passed the examination and ranked fourth out of forty eligible candidates on an open competitive employment list.  Thirteen candidates on the list were ultimately hired, but the Township exercised the “Rule of Three” to skip Salter on the list.  Salter appealed his bypass to the New Jersey Civil Service Commission.

Published on:

It’s a nightmare scenario for an employee.  She has a good job, but has received the opportunity of a lifetime.  She quits her job, moves to a new city, and gets ready to start her new position.  Then, just before she starts, the prospective employer calls and says, “Oops, we’ve changed our minds.  Sorry….”  Now she’s in a new city and maybe a new state, with a new lease or mortgage, and no job.  Does the law provide hercontract-1464917__340-300x200 with any remedy?  Fortunately, New Jersey employment law does provide relief under certain conditions.

Breach of Contract

The employee is in the best position if she received an employment contract.  If she has a written contract, she has the full range of remedies for breach of contract.  This does not mean that the prospective employer does not have defenses – there may be a perfectly good reason for rescinding the offer.  For example, the offer could be for an attorney who was disbarred or a doctor who lost her license to practice medicine.  However, there is a good chance that the contract will provide the employee with a remedy in court.

Published on:

A recent New Jersey employment law decision in the case of Rosemary Beneduci vs. Graham Curtin, P.A. addressed when failing to offer an employee of one business entity a job with a second when the two merge constitutes an illegal employment practice under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination.  While the case involved two law firms, it would be equally applicable to any employers.NJ_State_House-300x200

Background

As the opinion explained them, the facts are relatively straightforward.  Rosemary Beneduci was a long-time employee of Graham Curtin, P.A., a major New Jersey law firm.  She had been on disability leave for knee replacement surgery.  At the same time, Graham Curtin was merging with a second firm, McElroy Deutsch.  When the merger was completed, McElroy would be the surviving firm.  All of the attorneys and employees at Graham Curtain who did not leave for another firm were offered employment with McElroy except for Beneduci.  All of them became employees of McElroy except for Beneduci and one part-time employee who chose to retire.  The testimony indicated that Graham Curtin’s employees were hired based on the recommendation of its former managing partner; he recommended all the employees be hired by McElroy except for Beneduci.  When Beneduci emailed the managing partner, her direct supervisor, that she would be returning to work, he met with her, terminated her and offered her a severance agreement.  She rejected the agreement and sued Graham Curtain, its managing partner, and McElroy for violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Published on:

Under New Jersey employment law, criminal charges can have a significant impact on government employment beyond the penalties carried by the criminal charges themselves. paterson-pd-andrew-300x211 These effects impact both civil service and non-civil service employees.

Suspensions While Criminal Charges Are Pending

First, a public employee may be suspended while criminal charges are pending.

Published on:

Appellate Division Demonstrates Why It Makes Sense to Pursue Civil Service Disciplinary Appeals.

New Jersey civil service employees have protections which other employees do not.  The heart of this is the opportunity to appeal major discipline imposed by their employers.  A recentcop New Jersey appellate decision in the case of In the Matter of Malikah Spencer, Essex County, Department of Corrections, demonstrates that this process gives New Jersey civil service employees a fair hearing in these appeals, and demonstrates why civil service employees should pursue appeals of employer imposed major discipline.

Background

Published on:

New Jersey employment law recognizes the concept of “joint employers.”  Under this legal doctrine, an employee can have two employers even though he only gets paid by one.  The doctrine provides that when more than one entity acts as a person’s employer, both are jointly

small-business-1-300x199
responsible for complying with employee protection laws such as the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (known as CEPA or the New Jersey Whistleblower Law).

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey explained in the case of Pukowsky v. Caruso that the following factors are to be considered when determining whether the joint employer doctrine should cause a person or business to be a joint employer of an employee for employment law purposes.

Contact Information