"New Jersey employment law." Tag Archives

Published on: October 21, 2024

NJ Appeals Court Confirms Government Employees Can Only Litigate Employment Claims in One Forum

New Jersey public employees have multiple venues to litigate employment claims against their government employers.

Forums Available to New Jersey Public Employees

New Jersey government employees can sue in New Jersey state court, beginning with the Superior Court of New Jersey which sits in each county, for violation of state laws such as the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and then the state appellate courts. For employment-related civil rights claims or violations of Federal laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees can file suit in the Federal courts beginning with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey which sits in Camden, Trenton and Newark, with appeals heard by the United Staes Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then the United States Supreme Court. A civil service employee who alleges that she was disciplined in violation of civil service laws can appeal to the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, with appeals from Commission decisions being heard by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Tenured teachers and other education employees can appeal to the New Jersey Department of Education. Public employees can utilize the grievance procedure in the contract for allegations of violations of the contract for discipline, pay violations and other related matters. Grievance procedures in many union contracts often provide for binding arbitration with the Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”). PERC will also hear allegations of unfair labor practices, binding arbitration of certain contract negotiation impasses, scope of negotiations disputes, bargaining unit disputes, and certain appeals of discipline by law enforcement officers who are not employed in civil service jurisdictions.

Published on: August 17, 2023

Supreme Court Decision Indicates That Application of the Joint Employer Doctrine in New Jersey Employment Law Cases is Question for Jury

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

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.

Published on: July 23, 2023

New Jersey Supreme Court Issues Important Decision on Waiver of a Teacher’s Tenure Rights

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey employment law has few more contentious areas than tenure rights for public school teachers. I previously wrote about the Appellate Division decision in Parsells v. Board of Education of the Borough of Somerville. The case was subsequently appealed, and the New

Jersey Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Division’s decision while modifying it and establishing an important rule of law for when a teacher can be found to have waived her New Jersey tenure rights.

Background

Published on: June 21, 2023

Update on Sanjuan v. School District of West New York Case: NJ Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Education Employment Case

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

UPDATE: This post was originally published on January 3, 2023. On May 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted a writ of certiorari, meaning it will review the Appellate Division’s opinion in this case. The original post is below. Stand by for more.

ORIGINAL POST:

In many areas of New Jersey employment law, the scope of an arbitrator’s powers is a significant question. This is particularly true in the adjudication of tenure charges against New Jersey teachers and principals. The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court squarely addressed this issue in the recently published decision in the case of Sanjuan v. School District of West New York.

Published on: February 25, 2023

New Jersey’s Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights

by Pauline M.K. Young

New Jersey is one of the most employee-friendly states in the nation; and its becoming more and more employee-friendly every year. On February 6, 2023, Governor Murphy signed the Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights Act into law. This law clarifies and expands employee protections for non-exempt (hourly) employees who work for photo__1894482_mclaughlin_nardi_4712 temporary staffing agencies.

As a preliminary matter, it is important to note that this Act does not apply to all temporary workers. Indeed, a prior version of the law was vetoed by Governor Murphy who requested a narrower application of the law. As a result, the final law defines “temporary laborers” as those who contract for employment in a “designated classification placement” with a temporary staffing agency. “Designated classification placement” is further defined to include:

Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations;

Published on: January 5, 2023

New Jersey Age Discrimination in Employment Protections Strengthened

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

New Jersey employment law has long been at the forefront of prohibiting discrimination. Indeed, the Legislature adopted New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination in 1945, long before the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 first banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, and even before the President Harry Truman’s Executive Order desegregating the Armed Forces in 1948. The Law Against Discrimination has been amended many times since then to expand the protections against discrimination in employment, and decisions by New Jersey courts have interpreted the Law to provide much broader protections than those provided by similar Federal statutes such as the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (known as the “ADEA”). However, the Law Against Discrimination is not without its flaws. The New Jersey Legislature acted in 2021 to fix one of these flaws by strengthening the protections against age discrimination.

Prior Loopholes in Age Discrimination Protections

Published on: June 20, 2022

Appellate Division Addresses Notice Required Before Teacher Waives Her New Jersey Tenure Rights

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey employment law provides many protections to employees. One of the strongest of these is the tenure rights afforded to public school teachers. Even with such strong protections, for many reasons employees sometimes decide to forgo these rights. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently addressed a question about what notice is required when a full-time teacher voluntarily moves to a part-time position before she will be deemed to have waived her tenure rights to a back-to-school-1576791__340-300x200 full-time position in the case of Parsells v. Board of Education of the Borough of Somerville.

Background

Catherine Parsells was a tenured teacher with the Somerville, New Jersey, Board of Education. She began working there in 2010. In May 2016, a part-time teaching position with benefits became available. She applied so that she could spend more time with her young son, and her application was approved. Thereafter, Parsells went out on maternity leave on February 2, 2017. She advised the superintendent that she intended to return to the part-time job the following year; he advised that she could, but the job would no longer have benefits, and that if she wanted befits she would have to work in a full-time position. She continued part-time and later declined a new full-time position for family reasons. She extended her maternity leave to include the entire 2017-2018 school year.

Published on: May 31, 2022

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Upholds Non-Tenured School Employee’s Rights

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

In a recent New Jersey employment law decision, the Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court rejected a board of education’s argument that it had substantially complied with the requirements for giving notice to untenured employees whose employment contract was not going to be renewed for the following school year.

Background

In that case, Monika Vakulchik v. Board of Education of the Borough of Dunellen, Vakulchik, an untenured speech pathologist who worked for the Board since 2016, teacher-300x224 received an evaluation on May 1, 2020 with an average score of 3.33, which was in line with her scores over the previous years. It was signed by her supervisor, the director of special services, and recommended her for non-renewal, despite leaving the section listing the areas in which she could improver her work blank. She met with her supervisor and union representative, and then on May 3, 2020, emailed the superintendent requesting a statement of reasons for the non-renewal. The Board voted on May 5, 2020 to accept the superintendent’s recommendations for renewal, which did not include Vakulchik.

Published on: January 2, 2022

New Jersey Raises Minimum Wage Rate In 2022

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Increase

New Jersey’s minimum wage rate is going up again. The new minimum wage rate during this incremental increase is $13 per hour effective January 1, 2022. stock-photo-20612112-woman-leading-business-team

Background

Published on: November 9, 2021

Appellate Division Examines Process for Non-Civil Service New Jersey Police Officers to Challenge Discipline, But Reminds Us the Burden of Proof is on the Officer

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Government employees receive significant due process rights to challenge employer discipline which private sector employees and employees in non-civil service jurisdictions do not enjoy. However, because New Jersey employment law recognizes the great responsibility placed on law enforcement officers, the Legislature has enacted robust procedures for police officers not covered by civil service to appeal discipline to the Superior Court. Nonetheless, in the case of Miller vs. Borough of Berlin Police, the Appellate Division reminds us that the burden of proof remains on the officer and evidence is king.

Background

Jason Miller was a police officer with the Borough of Berlin Police Department, a non-civil service jurisdiction. He was dispatched to a banquet hall because of a report of the theft of a purse. Surveillance video showed an employee taking the purse, the manager gave Officer Miller the employee’s name and address, and Miller took a victim statement. Miller told the victim that the employee was clearly identifiable and would be charged with a crime (as the victim told him she wished), and that the case was a “slam dunk.” However, Miller did not follow up or press charges, and stated in the incident report that the victim did not wish to pursue criminal charges. Several days later the victim called the Department to follow up. Another officer took the call, and eventually other officers arrested the employee, who confessed.