The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

February 12, 2025

Home Care Company Owes Wages to Employees for Travel Time, Third Circuit Rules

Employers must pay hourly employees for all the time they are on the job. This is not limited to the time they are at their workstation and actively engaged in their job duties. New Jersey employment law requires employers to pay workers for time spent on other required tasks. Unpaid time spent changing into and out of work uniforms, for example, is a common basis for wage claims under state law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes New Jersey, recently ruled in favor of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in a wage lawsuit. The DOL filed suit on behalf of a group of home healthcare workers. The employer was not paying them for the time they spent traveling between clients’ homes. The court found that this was a “willful violation” of the FLSA.

The FLSA states that employers must pay all non-exempt employees a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Non-exempt employees are also entitled to time-and-a-half for overtime hours — if an employee receives $10 per hour for a forty-hour workweek, they should receive $15 per hour for hours over forty in a week.

Employers may violate the FLSA when they do not pay employees for all the hours they are at work. DOL regulations state that employees are entitled to wages for any time spent “on duty.” The rule uses the example of a “fireman who plays checkers while waiting for alarms.” They are not “working,” but they are also not free to do as they please. When employers do not pay employees for all the time they are on duty, an employee’s actual hourly rate may fall below the minimum wage. Their total hours worked may exceed forty hours in a week, entitling them to overtime pay.
Continue reading

February 11, 2025

Gender Identity Discrimination and Workplace Restroom Access in New Jersey

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression has received a large amount of attention, partly due to advances made by advocates for transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in the workplace and elsewhere. It is also due to pushback against those advances. New Jersey employment law specifically bars discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression, while federal law treats it as a form of sex discrimination. The use of restrooms in the workplace has been a topic of particular controversy in recent weeks due to a dispute involving the first openly transgender woman elected to Congress. New Jersey law generally states that employers must allow bathroom use based on individual gender identity.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires “lavatories…in all places of employment,” with only a few exceptions. Employers may have restrooms separated by sex or unisex restrooms. OSHA regulations are primarily concerned with sanitation and employee health, although the agency offers guidance on gender identity issues.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) states that employers may not discriminate against employees or job applicants “because of [their]…gender identity or expression.” The New Jersey Attorney General’s Division on Civil Rights interprets this provision to include “us[ing] a bathroom or changing room consistent with [an individual’s] gender identity or expression.” The state government’s policy on individuals who are transitioning their gender identity or expression includes a provision on restroom access, which requires state employers to provide “the same level of restroom access available to non-transgender individuals.”
Continue reading

February 5, 2025

Four Federal Agencies Partner to Investigate Antitrust Violations Affecting Workers in New Jersey and Nationwide

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Employees who have experienced unlawful practices in the workplace, such as wage and hour violations, misclassification, or discrimination, can turn to New Jersey employment laws. Some employment practices may violate antitrust laws at the federal and state levels. Antitrust laws prohibit actions that prevent or inhibit competition among businesses. The less businesses can compete, the more consumers will suffer without free market incentives to keep prices low. This can apply to employment, such as when employers collude to limit employees’ options for finding a new job. Several federal agencies entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) this fall. They agreed to cooperate and share information when investigating mergers that might violate antitrust law and harm employees.

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 addresses monopolies that restrain trade. This may include employment practices, such as when competing businesses agree to fix wages or refrain from hiring one another’s employees. This can deprive employees of opportunities to advance in their careers or demand better wages. If employers know their employees have no other prospects in their area, they have no incentive to raise wages or improve other working conditions.

The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 deals with practices that Congress did not specifically address in the Sherman Act. This includes mergers that may harm consumers or employees. The law prohibits mergers that could create a monopoly in a particular market. Employees may suffer from an unlawful merger if it substantially reduces the number of employers in a market or geographic area.
Continue reading

January 30, 2025

New Department of Labor Overtime Rule Hits Roadblock in New Jersey and Nationwide

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Federal and New Jersey employment laws protect many workers’ right to receive overtime pay when working more than forty hours a week. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides overtime pay at a time-and-a-half rate. It exempts certain categories of workers, including “executive, administrative, and professional” (EAP) employees. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a revised rule earlier this year that modified the criteria for the EAP exemption. The result is that fewer people are exempt from minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA. Lawsuits soon followed. A U.S. district judge recently struck the new overtime rule down. While his initial ruling only applied to the State of Texas as an employer, a subsequent ruling purports to strike the rule down nationwide, including New Jersey.

The FLSA uses broad language in many parts, leaving it to the DOL to work out the details. This includes the precise meanings of “executive, administrative, and professional” jobs. The DOL defines them based on factors like job duties and payment of a salary instead of hourly wages. It sets a threshold salary amount, above which a person falls under the EAP exemption. The new rule increased this threshold amount from $684 to $844 per week, or from $35,568 to $43,888 annually, as of July 1.

The rule sets another increase on January 1, 2025. Beginning on January 1, 2027, the threshold amount increases every three years based on current economic data. Two lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas followed the publication of the DOL’s rule. Plaintiffs included the State of Texas and various business associations.
Continue reading

January 22, 2025

Equal Pay Laws in New Jersey

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Disparities in wages and salaries remain a pernicious form of employment discrimination. According to the Pew Research Center, the nationwide gender pay gap only improved by 2% from 2002 to 2022. Women, on average, earned $0.80 for every $1 men earned in 2002, and $0.82 per $1 two decades later. These disparities can be much more pronounced when other factors, such as race, are taken into account. Both federal and New Jersey employment laws are working to address the issue, but it remains an issue. Lilly Ledbetter became an unintentional pioneer in this fight when Congress passed a law named after her that helps employees prove pay discrimination in court. Mrs. Ledbetter passed away at the age of 86 on October 12, 2024. In honor of her contributions to the battle for pay equity, we offer this review of her impact on federal pay discrimination law.

Several federal statutes address pay discrimination. The Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 amended the minimum wage section of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). It applies specifically to gender-based disparities in pay for equal work, treating them as minimum wage and overtime violations.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers discrimination “with respect to…compensation” based on race, sex, religion, color, and national origin. Section 706(e) of the statute states that an employee must file a charge within 180 days of an alleged discriminatory practice. This makes sense when the employee is aware of the discriminatory practice at or near the time it occurs, such as in many cases involving sexual harassment or wrongful termination. Pay discrimination can be much harder to identify. This is where Lilly Ledbetter enters the story.
Continue reading

November 29, 2024

New State Law Requires Pay Transparency by New Jersey Employers

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Disparities in wages and salaries remain a major form of workplace discrimination. New Jersey employment laws have tried to address this issue, but it can be difficult to identify wage discrimination, especially when employers attempt to prevent discussion about wages and salaries. The New Jersey Legislature passed a law in September 2024 that requires pay transparency. Covered employers will be required to include wage or salary information in job postings and announcements for transfer opportunities. The law does not allow employees to file lawsuits for violations, but it does impose civil penalties. It will take effect on June 1, 2025.

The pay transparency law applies to New Jersey employers with at least ten employees over at least twenty weeks in a year. Its definition of “employer” is fairly broad. Employment agencies and job placement agencies fall under the definition if they meet the minimum employee requirement.

The law sets two main requirements for covered employers. The first involves the disclosure of pay in postings for “new jobs and transfer opportunities.” It applies to both external postings, such as those posted on job search websites and other resources, and postings made internally within the company. Postings must include:
– The hourly wage or salary for the job, or the wage or salary range; and
– A “general description” of benefits and other compensation for which an employee would be eligible in the listed job.
Continue reading

November 22, 2024

New Jersey Employment Law and Political Speech in the Workplace

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The 2024 election is over, but arguments over politics are likely to continue for quite some time. Families might fight about politics at the dinner table, but what happens when political speech enters the workplace? What rights do employees have to speak about matters of political importance at work, and what rights do employers have to limit or restrict such speech? The answer depends, in part, on whether an employer is public or private. Public employers are subject to the First Amendment’s free speech provisions. Private employers are not, but they are still subject to limitations regarding restricting political speech. Federal and New Jersey employment laws allow employees to discuss certain issues at work, some of which may be deemed political.

Public Employers

The First Amendment states, in part, that the government may not “abridg[e] the freedom of speech.” This protection only applies to actions by or on behalf of the government. Public employers, as part of the government, are bound by the First Amendment. This does not mean that public employees have an unlimited right to speak their minds without concern for their jobs.

First of all, public employers have a right to maintain a professional and orderly workplace. Employees do not have a First Amendment right to speak in ways that disrupt their employer’s ordinary operations. This is similar to how governments can regulate the time and place of certain types of speech. A person can hold a rally in a park in the afternoon, for example, but not at 2:00 a.m. on a residential street.
Continue reading

November 18, 2024

NLRB Final Rule Reinstates Several Union Organizing Tools That May Affect New Jersey Workers

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Under federal and New Jersey employment laws, workers have the right to organize themselves for collective bargaining and other activities related to advocacy for their interests in the workplace. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) oversees multiple aspects of federal labor law. This includes investigating alleged violations of workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), overseeing union elections, and bringing administrative cases against employers or unions. Some of the NLRA’s language is rather vague, leaving interpretation and implementation of the law to the NLRB. The administrative rulemaking process allows the NLRB to create rules and regulations based on the NLRA. These rules tend to shift as different administrations move in and out of the White House. This summer, the NLRB issued a final rule that makes several changes to the regulations. Some — but not necessarily all — of the changes may be helpful to New Jersey workers.

The NLRA addresses a variety of issues involved in labor relations.
– Section 7 of the statute defines employees’ rights, although it does so in very general terms. These include the right to organize, engage in collective bargaining, and engage in other activities related to “mutual aid or protection.” Employees also have the right to refrain from any of these activities.
– Section 8 defines “unfair labor practices” by employers and unions, such as restraining or coercing employees with regard to their rights under § 7.
– Section 9 deals with how to designate a union as employees’ official representative for collective bargaining, including procedures for union elections.
– Section 10 outlines the NLRB’s power to investigate and adjudicate complaints.

The NLRB’s new rule rescinds a 2020 rule and reinstates several practices that tend to benefit unions. One such practice is known as a “blocking charge.” This allows regional NLRB directors to postpone a pending election if they receive a charge alleging unfair labor practices that would restrict “employee free choice” in that election. The NLRB can investigate the charge before proceeding with the election. The 2020 rule required regional directors to allow election to go on despite the charge.
Continue reading

November 8, 2024

How AI Can Cause Inadvertent Disability Discrimination in New Jersey Workplaces

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 protects workers against discrimination because of injuries, illnesses, and other conditions that impair their daily lives. The statute prohibits employers from discrimination based on disability and requires them to provide reasonable accommodations to help employees with disabilities perform their jobs. Compliance with the ADA often requires careful consideration of employees’ needs on a case-by-case basis. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has addressed concerns about employers’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems to handle various tasks once left to human employees. The agency has identified areas of concern where an AI system could lead to ADA violations.

Protections Under the ADA

An employer may not “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability” in matters like hiring, promotions, termination and layoffs, compensation, and other aspects of employment. The ADA prohibits “medical examinations and inquiries” intended to assess whether an individual has a covered disability, or the extent of such a disability.

The statute imposes an obligation on employers to make reasonable accommodations for “the known physical or mental limitations” of an employee or job applicant who is otherwise able to perform their job duties. The only exception is when an employer can show that an accommodation “would impose an undue hardship” on the employer’s business. Accommodations that have been deemed “reasonable” include wheelchair access, flexible scheduling, and reading assistance for employees with visual impairments.
Continue reading

November 1, 2024

Third Circuit Allows Religious Discrimination Claim Involving Vaccine Mandate to Proceed

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Both private and public employers have obligations to their employees under New Jersey employment laws. These include obligations to pay a minimum wage and to maintain a workplace reasonably free from discrimination and harassment. Public employers, such as state and local agencies and officials, may also have a duty to respect their employees’ constitutional rights. An employee who believes their employer has discriminated against them because of their religion can bring a claim under a state or federal employment statute. If they work for a public employer, they may also be able to claim a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes New Jersey, recently ruled in favor of an employee’s religious discrimination claim. Rather than suing under an employment statute, the employee alleged violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

Public employees may be able to assert claims against their employers for violations of certain constitutional rights. Many claims rely on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to sue for deprivation of constitutional rights for actions taken “under color of any statute” or other law. Section 1983 claims are common in a wide variety of incidents involving government officials or agencies, from police brutality to employment discrimination.

It is also possible to allege a constitutional violation directly as a cause of action. These types of claims often involve First Amendment rights. For example, public employers do not have as much leeway to restrict their employees’ speech as private employers do. Public employees may be able to assert claims involving violations of their rights to free speech, freedom of religion, or other rights under the First Amendment.
Continue reading