Non-Disparagement Settlements in New Jersey, DOL's AI Guidelines, OSHA Regions Shift - Employment Law This Week®
Since certain amendments in 2019, it has been widely recognized that Section 10:5-12.8 of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8) prohibits non-disclosure provisions in employment agreements or employee...more
May 2024 NJ Supreme Court holds that non-disparagement provisions cannot prohibit disclosure of details relating to claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment - The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that...more
The Supreme Court of New Jersey has just made it even harder for employers to prevent harmful comments from employees and former employees. Specifically, non-disparagement clauses have been the primary tool employers use to...more
On May 7, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Savage v. Township of Neptune that a non-disparagement clause in a settlement agreement between a former police sergeant and her former employer resolving sex...more
This week, we’re highlighting recent updates across the state and federal employment landscapes, including the New Jersey Supreme Court’s non-disparagement ruling, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) new artificial...more
On May 7, 2024, the Supreme Court of New Jersey invalidated an otherwise valid settlement agreement solely because the agreement contained a “non-disparagement provision,” the scope of which the court found “would bar...more
On May 7, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court (the Court) unanimously held that non-disparagement clauses with the purpose or effect of concealing the details of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment cannot be included in...more
In a significant opinion affecting employers, the New Jersey Supreme Court has placed strict limits on the scope of “nondisparagement” clauses in settlement agreements that impact the ability of victims of harassment,...more
Key Takeaways - The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) contained an express exception for religious organizations that make employment decisions based on employment criteria...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The New Jersey employers were dealt an “emotional” blow when the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Cuevas v. Wentworth Group, affirmed a trial court’s denial of an employer’s request for remittitur of the...more
Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Robert Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad (MRS) that an employer cannot terminate an employee for separating or divorcing – the processes of which apparently falls under the...more
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision forbids employers from contractually shortening the two-year limitations period under the state’s Law Against Discrimination. In a decision issued on June 15 that reversed two...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court of New Jersey rules that employers may not shorten the statute of limitations for claims of discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination via private contract. The...more
On the heels of an appellate decision providing employees a virtual how-to manual to misuse and exploit confidential employer documents and safely provide them to a competitor, New Jersey's Supreme Court reversed course last...more
Five years ago, in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a trusted employee's act of stealing and using her employer's confidential personnel documents in furtherance of her...more
On June 23, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, 204 N.J. 239 (2010), does not bar criminal prosecutions arising from an employee’s removal of confidential company documents to...more