United States Supreme Court Expands Employer Responsibility for Accommodating Pregnancy

On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Young v. UPS, which employer and employee groups alike hoped would clarify whether employers must provide light duty and other workplace accommodations to pregnant employees in the same manner they provide accommodations to employees who are injured on the job.  While the majority opinion did not answer this question directly, the Supreme Court provided a somewhat new framework for pregnant employees challenging workplace accommodation policies and practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”).

If an employer’s policies impose a “significant burden” on pregnant workers, and the employer’s articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons do not justify that burden but instead give rise to an inference of discrimination, then a plaintiff likely will be able to reach a jury trial on her pregnancy claim.  As the Court noted, a “significant burden” can be shown by evidence that an employer “accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.”  The Court also strongly hinted that cost and inconvenience alone would be insufficient reasons to avoid a jury trial.

The Court’s decision creates the possibility that workplace policies that provide accommodations to some workers but exclude pregnant employees may be a violation of the PDA.  If employers have such accommodation policies, they should consider taking steps to reconsider them, particularly if the only justification for excluding pregnant workers from those policies is the consideration of cost or convenience.  At the very least, employers who have such a policy should be prepared to articulate a strong, legitimate rationale for maintaining that policy.

Employers should take the time to carefully review their non-disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation policy in light of the Young opinion.  Employers should also train their supervisory employees to ensure they understand the accommodation process.  Please feel free to contact Connell Foley’s employment law attorneys for guidance on analyzing your company’s policies and procedures, and for any employee training needs.

New Jersey’s “Ban the Box” Law in Effect March 1, 2015

On March 1, 2015, New Jersey’s Opportunity to Compete Act goes into effect.  The law, dubbed “Ban the Box” legislation, prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from including a question on an employment application asking about the applicant’s criminal background.  It also prohibits employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal record during the “initial employment application process.”

The “initial employment application process” is defined as the time period from when the applicant first inquires about an employment position, through his/her first interview with the employer.  Thus, only upon completion of the applicant’s first interview would the employer be permitted to inquire about the applicant’s criminal history or conduct a criminal background check.  The law also prohibits employers from posting job advertisements stating that they do not consider anyone with a criminal background.  There are exceptions for certain positions, where a criminal background check is required by law or where the position is part of a program designed to employ people with criminal backgrounds.

The law is intended to create a hiring process that is more favorable to individuals who have a criminal history by providing them an opportunity to re-integrate into the workforce.  The law imposes civil penalties for violations of its provisions. 

For more information on the new law and how it applies to your business, please contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment lawattorneys.

New Jersey Supreme Court Establishes Affirmative Defenses for Employers Accused of Sexual Harassment and Affirms the Importance of Employee Training

On February 11, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court raised the standards for plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases who are seeking to hold their employers vicariously liable for a supervisor’s alleged harassing conduct. 

In Aguas v. State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that, in supervisor harassment cases where the supervisor’s alleged harassment has not culminated in a tangible employment action, an employer may assert as an affirmative defense:

(a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and

(b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

As the court explained, a “supervisor” in sexual harassment cases includes any individual who was authorized to undertake tangible employment decisions affecting the plaintiff employee or who was authorized to direct the plaintiff employee’s day-to-day work activities.

The court specifically hinted to employers that this affirmative defense is a powerful incentive for an employer to unequivocally warn its workforce that sexual harassment will not be tolerated, to provide consistent workplace harassment prevention training, and to strictly enforce its policy.  The court warned, however, that “an employer that implements an ineffective anti-harassment policy, or fails to enforce its policy, may not assert the affirmative defense.”

Employers should take this opportunity to examine their anti-harassment policies to ensure they are effective and specifically-tailored to their workplace.  Employers should also provide workplace harassment prevention training to their supervisors and employees to make sure every supervisor knows how to prevent and promptly correct sexually-harassing behavior and to make sure every employee knows about the employer’s reporting mechanisms.

Connell Foley has extensive experience in drafting effective anti-harassment policies and conducting practical, cost-effective workplace harassment prevention training.  Please feel free to contact our employment law attorneys for guidance on drafting an effective anti-harassment policy for your workplace, training your workforce, and enforcing your policy to ensure your business can take advantage of this new affirmative defense.

New Jersey Adopts “ABC Test” for Classifying Independent Contractors Under Wage Payment Law

On January 14, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided which test should be applied under New Jersey law to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of resolving a wage payment or wage and hour claim.  Hargrove v. Sleepy’s LLC presented that issue on a question of law certified and submitted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The New Jersey Supreme Court determined that the “ABC” test governs whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.  Under the “ABC” test, an employer is required to presume that a worker is an employee unless the employer can show that:

(1)        the employer neither exercised control over the worker nor had the ability to exercise control in terms of the completion of the work;

(2)        the services provided were either outside the usual course of business or performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise; and

(3)        the individual is customarily engaged in an independently-established trade, occupation, profession or business.

An employer’s failure to satisfy any one of those three criteria results in the worker being classified as an “employee” for wage payment and wage and hour purposes.  Thus, New Jersey employers must satisfy the worker-friendly “ABC” test in order to classify a worker as an independent contractor for purposes of the Wage Payment Law and Wage and Hour Law. 

Before Hargrove, many New Jersey employers traditionally applied the six-factor “economic realities” test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor for purposes of minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The results of an analysis under the economic realities test may, and likely would, be different than the results of an analysis using the “ABC” test.

Employers should take this opportunity to examine their worker classifications to ensure they satisfy this new standard and either re-classify their workers as employees or tailor their relationships in order to satisfy the “ABC” test.  This includes reviewing – and ensuring the employer has – documentation regarding the independent contractor’s separate business entity, invoices for work performed, and written contracts that clearly describe the work duties and track the elements of the “ABC” test. 

Please feel free to contact Connell Foley’s employment lawattorneys for guidance on implementing the “ABC” test or any other worker classification issue you may be facing.

Revised Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Effective January 1, 2015

Beginning January 1, 2015, employers under the federal jurisdiction of OSHA will be required to comply with more stringent OSHA recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  In the past, employers were required to report all work-related fatalities and all work-related hospitalizations of three or more employees. Starting January 1st, however, employers must report all of the following:

•  All work-related fatalities;
•  All work-related inpatient hospitalizations of one or more employees;
•  All work related amputations;
•  All work-related losses of an eye.

Pursuant to the new requirements, work-related fatalities must be reported to OSHA within 8 hours of learning of the incident, and all inpatient hospitalizations, amputations and losses of an eye must be reported within 24 hours of learning of the incident. Three reporting mechanisms will be available to employers: (1) calling or visiting the nearest area office during normal business hours, (2) calling the 24-hour OSHA hotline at 800.321.OSHA, or (3) reporting online (coming soon at www.osha.gov).

OSHA has prepared resources to assist employers in understanding and complying with the new requirements including a FactSheet and a list of FAQs.

For more information on the new OSHA requirements and how they may affect your business, please contact Connell Foley’s labor and employmentlaw attorneys.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Publishes Final Rule Prohibiting Discrimination by Federal Government Contractors on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

On December 9, 2014, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) published a Final Rule implementing President Obama’s Executive Order 13672, which incorporates “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes and bars related employment discrimination by federal government contractors.  The Final Rule becomes effective on April 8, 2015 (120 days after publication in the Federal Register).  The Rule was initially expected to be published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2014, but a notice soliciting comments on the Rule pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act was issued instead, providing for a 60 day comment period. Despite this comment period, given that the OFCCP has already issued FAQs pertaining to the Rule, no substantive changes are expected.

The new Rule implements Executive Order 13672 by amending the implementing regulations under Executive Order 11246. The Rule will apply to contractors or subcontractors with more than $10,000 in federal government business and covers contracts entered into or modified on or after the effective date. The regulations do not define the terms “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” As set forth in the OFCCP’s FAQs, the OFCCP utilizes the same definitions used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and case law developed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

What Does the New Rule Require?

• Covered contractors and subcontractors must revise the Equal Opportunity Clause contained in new and modified contracts, subcontracts and purchase orders, and update the equal opportunity language in their Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) policy statements, training materials, handbooks, and job solicitations to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” or otherwise replace the phrase “sex, or national origin” with the phrase “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” throughout. 

• Covered contractors and subcontractors must post revised “EEO and the Law” posters that include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes and otherwise revise all posted EEO notices to include sexual orientation and gender identity.  A revised “EEO and the Law” poster has not yet been released by the OFCCP or EEOC.

• Overall, covered contractors and subcontractors must ensure that applicants and employees are not discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

What is Not Required by the New Rule?

• The Final Rule does not require covered contractors to conduct any data analysis with respect to the sexual orientation or gender identity of their applicants or employees.

• The Final Rule does not contain any affirmative action program requirements, and thus does not change any of the written affirmative action plan requirements contained in 41 C.F.R. Part 60-2.

• The Final Rule does not require covered contractors to establish placement goals for employing persons on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

For more information on the new Rule and how it may apply to your business, please contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys.

New Jersey Assembly Committee Advances Paid Sick Leave Bill

On October 27, 2014, the New Jersey Assembly Labor Committee advanced amended legislation that would require employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees.  The Legislature is joining a national and local trend to mandate paid sick leave in almost every workplace.

The bill would require employees to accrue one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked, up to 40 hours per year if the employer has fewer than 10 employees and up to 72 hours per year if the employer has 10 or more employees.  The employer would be required to pay the employee for earned sick leave at the employee’s normal rate of pay.  The bill provides for penalties for non-compliance with its requirements.

The Labor Committee made several amendments to the bill.  Among other changes, the Committee defined the term “benefit year” as a 12-month period established by the employer during which an employee accrues and uses earned sick leave.  It also specifically exempted from its purview construction employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

The proposed legislation is now before the Assembly Budget Committee for review.  It will need to be passed by the Assembly, then by the Senate, and finally by Governor Chris Christie before it becomes binding legislation.  Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys will continue to track this bill.

New Jersey Minimum Wage Hike Effective January 1

On January 1, 2015, New Jersey’s minimum wage will increase from $8.25 per hour to $8.38 per hour.  In November 2013, voters approved a constitutional amendment to initially raise New Jersey’s minimum wage to $8.25 per hour and then raise it annually according to the cost-of-living increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”).  Each September, these annual increases are calculated.

As a result, employers must begin paying employees at least $8.38 per hour beginning January 1, 2015.  Please feel free to contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys if you have any questions regarding the minimum wage increase.

Three New Jersey Towns Pass Paid Sick Leave Ordinances

Within the past few weeks, three New Jersey towns – Passaic, Paterson and East Orange – passed paid sick leave ordinances.  Under these laws, private employers are required to provide paid sick leave to their employees who work a minimum number of hours per year within the city. 

Under all three ordinances, employers with 10 or more employees are required to provide at least 40 hours of paid sick leave per year to their employees.  Employers with fewer than 10 employees are required to provide at least 24 hours of paid sick leave per year.  The ordinances have a special exception for employees who are child care workers, home health workers and food service workers, as they are permitted to accrue up to 40 hours of paid sick leave per year, even if the employer has fewer than 10 employees.

Passaic, Paterson and East Orange employees earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to 40 hours per year.  The ordinances permit employees to use paid sick time to care for themselves, their spouse or civil union partner, children, siblings, parents, grandparents and grandchildren.  Employers are required to provide written notice to their employees of their rights under the law, and they must post information about the ordinance at their place of business.

All of these paid sick leave ordinances go into effect in January 2015.  Currently, there is state legislation pending that would mandate paid sick leave for all employees within New Jersey.  The bill is still being contemplated by the legislature.  Please contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys for guidance on addressing these new paid sick leave ordinances.

NJ Appellate Division Upholds Employment Application Truncating Statute of Limitations

On June 19, 2014, in Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., 436 N.J. Super. 305 (App. Div. 2014), the New Jersey Appellate Division held that a contractual provision contained in an employment application that shortens the statute of limitations applicable to claims against the employer is enforceable.

In the case, plaintiff Sergio Rodriguez applied for a position at Raymours Furniture Co., a retail furniture company.  On the application form, immediately above the signature line, there was bold-faced, large print, capitalized language indicating that the applicant was waiving the statute of limitations applicable to claims or lawsuits against the company and, instead, would be required to file any claim within six months of the date of the action.  The plaintiff was hired and, several years later, was laid off during a company-wide reduction in force (“RIF”). 

The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against Raymours nine months after the RIF.  The trial court granted Raymours’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff filed his lawsuit outside of the contractual time period of six months.  The Appellate Division affirmed.  The panel found that the language was clear in its terms, was conspicuously placed on the application, was reasonable, and was not contrary to any public policy.

In light of this opinion, employers may want to consider including a statute of limitations waiver in their employment applications.  For assistance in drafting this language or other employment policies, please contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys.

Draft Affordable Care Act Forms and Instructions Released

The IRS recently released draft forms and instructions for employers to review in connection with the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) employer mandate.  These forms are merely in “draft” form and may change in the future, but they provide insight into the scope of information that likely will be required from employers in the near future.

Beginning in 2016 for the 2015 Plan Year, certain employers must file Forms 1094-C and 1095-C in order to meet their reporting requirements under the statute.  The purpose of the reporting requirement is to notify the government about whether the employer is meeting its health coverage obligations under the ACA.

The ACA requires employers with 50 to 99 “full time equivalent” employees to offer health insurance to all full time employees by January 2016.  Employers with over 100 “full time equivalent” employees must offer health insurance to all full time employees by January 2015.  Employers that fail to meet these requirements are subject to a fine.

Form 1094-C is used to report to the IRS a summary of the information being provided on a Form 1095-C as to each employee.  A copy of the draft Form 1094-C can be found here.  Form 1095-C is used to report information about each employee’s health insurance coverage.  A copy of the draft Form 1095-C can be found here.  A copy of the draft instructions for filling out both forms can be found here.

For more information on the ACA employer mandate, please contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys.

NLRB Ratifies Agency Actions Following Supreme Court’s Noel Canning Decision

On July 18, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) ratified all administrative, personnel, and procurement actions approved and/or taken by the Board between January 4, 2012 and August 5, 2013.  This ratification follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning that invalidated NLRB actions during that time period because President Obama impermissibly appointed Board members in January 2012.

The NLRB’s meeting minutes show that all five Board members unanimously approved the ratification.  For more information on the effects of the NLRB’s decision, feel free to contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys.

Christie Signs “Ban the Box” Legislation

On August 11, 2014, Governor Chris Christie signed into law the Opportunity to Compete Act, joining the national trend of “ban the box” legislation.  The Legislature passed the underlying bill in June.

The new law prohibits employer inquiries into a job applicant’s criminal record during the initial application process.  Therefore, under the legislation, employers cannot require applicants to complete an initial application that asks about their criminal history, cannot post job advertisements stating that they do not consider anyone with a criminal background, and cannot ask questions about prior arrests or convictions during an applicant’s first interview.

The measure is designed to create a hiring process that is more favorable to individuals who have a criminal history.  The legislation imposes civil penalties for violations of its provisions.  For more information on the new law and how it applies to your business, please contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys.

NLRB General Counsel Authorizes Complaints Against Both McDonald’s Franchisees and Franchisor

The Office of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has been investigating charges against McDonald’s franchisees that they violated their employees’ labor rights in connection with employee protests.  Yesterday, July 29, 2014, the General Counsel authorized complaints against both the McDonald’s franchisees and, startlingly, their franchisor for those alleged violations. 

The General Counsel’s decision permits the McDonald’s franchisor to be named as a “joint employer” in the complaints.  Therefore, the franchisor could be held responsible if a franchisee committed a violation of the labor laws.  If sustained by an administrative law judge and/or the NLRB, this decision would represent a significant expansion of the “joint employer” theory that could have wide-ranging implications not only for the fast-food industry but also for businesses like hotels and car dealerships.  Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys will continue to track the developments of this case.

EEOC Issues New Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination

On July 14, 2014, the EEOC issued Enforcement Guidance (“Guidance”) and Questions and Answers (“Q&As”) addressing pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.  The Guidance explains the EEOC’s interpretations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as they pertain to pregnant workers.

The PDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s past, current, or potential pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, including lactation.  The PDA also requires employers to treat pregnant women the same as others who are similar in their ability or inability to work.  Therefore, pregnant employees must receive equal access to benefits, such as light duty, leave, and health insurance.

Under the ADA, employers are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of an employee’s disability.  Pregnancy itself is not a disability under the ADA, but some pregnant workers might have pregnancy-related impairments that qualify as disabilities.  The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who are disabled, including those with pregnancy-related conditions.

The Guidance is persuasive, but not binding, authority.  The United States Supreme Court is set to hear Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., in which it will decide “whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations must provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are ‘similar in their ability or inability to work.’”  The Court’s decision could affect the persuasiveness of the Guidance on this issue in the future.

Although this Guidance is generally consistent with New Jersey’s state laws against pregnancy discrimination, it could impact some employers’ policies on pregnancy accommodations.  Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys welcome the opportunity to review your company’s workplace policies. 

U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates NLRB Decisions

On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, invalidating recess NLRB appointments that President Obama made on January 4, 2012 and potentially invalidating all NLRB decisions from January 2012 through July 2013.

In January 2012, the Senate was holding “pro forma” sessions every three days and, during that time, President Obama believed the Senate was “in recess.”  Therefore, under the Constitution’s Recess Appointment Clause, President Obama exercised his authority to appoint members to the NLRB.  Those members went on to make decisions with sweeping changes to the NLRB case law.

In its June 26 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Senate was not in recess in January 2012 and, thus, the President lacked the power to make the NLRB recess appointments.  In so holding, the Court found that the NLRB was not operating with the requisite three-member quorum when making decisions from 2012 through 2013.  The Court, therefore, invalidated all of the NLRB’s decisions from January 2012 through July 2013, when it established a proper membership.

The decision affects employers as it raises uncertainty concerning the validity of NLRB decisions, rulings, and administrative actions issued during this time period, although the NLRB has already started to revisit these decisions on a case-by-case basis.  Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys will track the NLRB’s response and will be available to assist employers in understanding how to respond to these new decisions.

Assembly Advances “Ban the Box” Bill

On June 26, 2014, the New Jersey Assembly passed the “Opportunity to Compete Act.”  The Legislature is joining a national trend to create “ban the box” legislation that would eliminate the check box on job applications asking whether the applicant has been convicted of a crime.

The bill would prohibit certain employers from inquiring as to an applicant’s criminal record during the “initial application process.”  Therefore, an employer would only be permitted to ask, either orally or in writing, about the applicant’s criminal background after the initial interview with the applicant.  Failure to comply with the legislation’s mandates would result in civil penalties.

Both Houses have now passed the bill, which is pending Governor Christie’s review and signature.  Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys will continue to track this pending legislation.

New York Passes Bill Eliminating Wage Notice Requirement

On June 19, 2014, the New York Legislature passed a bill that would eliminate the requirement that employers provide annual wage notices to employees.  Currently, under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, employers must provide wage notices to all employees by February 1 of each year.  The bill would eliminate that mandate starting in 2015.

The bill, however, would not modify the requirement that employers provide a wage notice to new employees upon their hire.  It also would increase the penalties for an employer’s failure to provide such wage statements.

If Governor Cuomo signs the bill, it will take effect sixty days after it is signed.  Please feel free to contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys if you have questions about the bill or any other wage and hour law issue.

NJ Supreme Court Reaffirms Standard for CEPA Claims

New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), protects and encourages employees to report illegal or unethical workplace activities without threat of retaliation by the employer. On June 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a landmark opinion involving the CEPA.  In Hitesman v. Bridgeway, Inc., the Court found that the plaintiff’s CEPA claim failed because he could not point to a binding source of public policy under which he could receive whistleblower protection.

The plaintiff was a nurse at a nursing home who claimed he was fired for blowing the whistle over improper patient care at the nursing facility. Specifically, he claimed that, pursuant to the American Nursing Association Code of Ethics (“ANA Code”), he reported a rash of gastrointestinal and respiratory infections that broke out among the nursing home’s patients. The plaintiff disagreed with the manner in which the outbreak was handled. As a result of the report, he was retaliated against and terminated.

The Court, in affirming the Appellate Division’s decision, held that the ANA Code “does not constitute a source of law or other authority” that establishes standards for infection control at nursing homes.  It reasoned that claims asserted under CEPA’s “improper quality of patient care” provision must be premised on a “reasonable belief” that an employer has violated a rule, law, declaratory ruling adopted pursuant to law, regulation, or professional code of ethics governing the profession or delineating between acceptable and unacceptable conduct for the employer in question.  

In order to assert that an employer’s conduct is incompatible with a “clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health,” the employee must be able to cite to authority that governs the standards for the employer’s conduct.  The ANA Code does not govern the standards for a nursing home’s conduct and, therefore, cannot serve as the source of authority for a CEPA claim.  Instead, the ANA Code “directs a nurse’s action in response to deficient patient care in a nursing home, but provides no standard by which such a deficiency can be ascertained.”

The Hitesman decision is significant insofar as the New Jersey Supreme Court reaffirmed that in order for an employee to have a viable CEPA claim regarding improper quality of patient care or conduct incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy the employee’s complaints must actually implicate an activity, policy or practice of the employer. Also, and the employee is required to present evidence to support a substantial connection between the adverse employment action he or she is  complaining of and the employee’s alleged whistleblowing activity. 

Newark’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance In Effect

The City of Newark’s paid sick leave ordinance took effect this past Saturday, June 21, 2014.  As we previously posted on April 1, 2014, the City of Newark passed an ordinance mandating certain employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees.  Employers are required to notify employees of their rights by providing individual written notice to employees and posting a notice of rights in the workplace, although the City has not yet issued a model notice.

For more information about the ordinance, refer to Newark’s webpage or contact Connell Foley’s labor and employment law attorneys.