Non-Disparagement Settlements in New Jersey, DOL's AI Guidelines, OSHA Regions Shift - Employment Law This Week®
In Savage v. Township of Neptune, et al., (A-2-23, decided May 7, 2024), the New Jersey Supreme Court analyzed and invalidated a non-disparagement provision included in a settlement agreement against a plaintiff alleging...more
On May 15, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Maia v. IEW Construction Group that both the six-year look-back period and liquidated damages provided by the state Wage Theft Act (WTA) do not apply retroactively....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The New Jersey Supreme Court held that amendments to New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law and Wage Payment Law that increase employer wage-hour liability are not retroactive....more
On May 7, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that non-disparagement provisions precluding discussion of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claims are unenforceable. We delve into the Court’s reasoning, as well...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
In a recent unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that non-disparagement provisions in settlement agreements or employment agreements are against public policy and unenforceable if they seek to bar speech...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
One of the most deceptively complex issues in New Jersey workers’ compensation is the definition of an employee. This designation is critical because only employees, as opposed to independent contractors, are eligible for...more
In a case involving a drywall installation business, the New Jersey Supreme Court has provided helpful tips for employers to properly classify construction workers as independent contractors or employees and to accurately...more
A recent decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court makes this a good time for companies using independent contractors to review those arrangements. In East Bay Drywall v. Department of Labor & Workforce Development, the...more
On August 2, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court in East Bay Drywall, LLC. v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development, issued a unanimous opinion holding that workers, hired on a need and availability basis, who used...more
On August 2, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down its decision in East Bay Drywall, LLC v. Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development, providing important insight into the classification of independent contractors by...more
On Aug. 2, 2022, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court in East Bay Drywall, LLC v. Department of Labor & Workforce Development issued a ruling that provides further guidance on the classification of a New Jersey worker’s...more
On August 2, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey handed down a key ruling that significantly impacts how companies across the state should classify workers as independent contractors. In East Bay Drywall, LLC. v. Department...more
A recent decision issued by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a reminder that not every employee who “blows the whistle” is a “whistleblower” protected under the New Jersey...more
As an employment attorney for more than 30 years, I have seen a lot of change. Changes in the legal system, changes in the law and changes in the types of claims that employees can assert against their employers (or even...more
After losing in both the trial and appellate courts, Armando Rios, Jr., an ex-Pharmaceutical Executive, managed to sway the minds of the Justices on the State’s highest court to revive his hostile work environment claim. Rios...more
The New Jersey Supreme Court has finally settled the issue of whether New Jersey employees must demonstrate the existence of an adverse employment action (i.e., transfer, suspension, failure to promote, termination, etc.) to...more
On June 8, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Richter v. Oakland Board of Education affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling that an employee asserting a failure to accommodate claim does not have to separately establish...more
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a significant decision in the area of cannabis law. In Hager v MK Construction, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed that medical cannabis prescriptions are lawful under workers...more
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, that M&K Construction must reimburse an employee, Vincent Hager, for the cost of his medical marijuana in his workers’ compensation case, upholding the lower...more
At a time when vaccinations are on everyone’s mind, the New Jersey Supreme Court has given a shot in the arm to New Jersey pregnancy discrimination laws. In Delanoy v. Township of Ocean, 2021 N.J. LEXIS 176 (Mar. 9, 2021),...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The New Jersey Supreme Court recently clarified the standard an employer must meet to successfully assert a good faith defense to wage and hour claims....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an employee’s continued employment can be deemed to be assent to the terms of an employer’s arbitration agreement. ...more
This week, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying the steps that employers must take to implement arbitration agreements with current employees, even absent affirmative employee consent. Our firm appeared...more