HOLMDEL, NEW JERSEY (March 27, 2025) – Former Assistant Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Health’s Division of Public Health Infrastructure, Laboratories, and Emergency Preparedness, Christopher Neuwirth, has reached a $2.25 million settlement with the State of New Jersey to resolve his whistleblower lawsuit. At the same time, the New Jersey State Ethics Commission has officially dismissed all allegations that Mr. Neuwirth violated state ethics rules during his tenure.

Mr. Neuwirth filed suit in 2020 following his termination from the Department of Health, alleging that he was retaliated against after reporting unethical conduct by senior state officials. Mr. Neuwirth alleged in the lawsuit that his termination violated the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”). The litigation has now concluded with a financial settlement and the complete dismissal of the parallel ethics investigation that had been cited by the administration at the time of his removal.

The post Christopher Neuwirth Vindicated in Ethics Complaint; Secures $2.25M Settlement from State of New Jersey appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.

Often the terms of a non-compete can seem confusing and overbroad, leaving employees asking “how can I ever leave for a better job?”. Some non-competes bar the employee from working in the same industry for a long period of time, and/or working for a competitor within a wide geographic area. Those ready to leave their jobs can consult an attorney to find out if these terms are really enforceable.

New Jersey courts analyze the enforcement of a non-compete agreement using three factors, all of which must be met in order for an employer to succeed in enforcement; it must (1) protect the legitimate interests of the employer; (2) not impose an undue hardship on the employee; and (3) not be injurious to the public. The Court’s inquiry into these factors is fact specific to the employee, the employer, the new employer and the relationships amongst each other.

The post The Harmful Effects of Non Competes in New Jersey appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.

Currently, under the New Jersey Family Leave Act, eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave within a 24-month period for reasons that include:

• To care for or bond with a child, as long as the leave begins within 1 year of the child’s birth or placement for adoption or foster care;

The post Bill to Expand New Jersey Family Leave Act to Cover Bereavement Passes in Assembly appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a decision today invalidating a state employment regulation that required state workplace investigators to request victims and witnesses in harassment investigations to keep all aspects of the investigation confidential.  The Court held that the challenged regulation, N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j), was unconstitutionally overbroad and struck the relevant portion concerning the confidenitialty directive.  The decision is a major victory for employees and their rights to speak freely and openly about issues of workplace discrimination and sexual harassment. 

The challenge arose out of an employment lawsuit brought by a Department of Transportation employee who complained of sexual harassment and retaliation. After complaining to the Civil Service Commission about the sexual harassment, the employee, Viktoriya Usachenok, was interviewed by an investigator from the Division of Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (“EEO/AA”) who required that Ms. Usachnanok sign a confidentiality agreement prohibiting her from speaking to anyone outside the state about her complaints of sexual harassment.  

In her sexual harassment lawsuit, Ms. Usachenok brought a claim for declaratory judgment to invalidate a state regulation that required EEO/AA investigators to impose strict confidentiality upon victims and witnesses of incidents of harassment within state employment. In response to the lawsuit, the Civil Service Commission amended the regulation to require its EEO/AA investigators to request victims and witnesses to keep all aspects of their investigation confidential. The amended regulation was also challenged as a violation of state employees’ rights under the First Amendment and an unlawful restraint of protected rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 

The post Supreme Court Invalidates State Workplace Confidentiality Directive Regulation appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.

Restrictive covenants, more commonly known as “non-competes,” allow employers to prevent skilled employees from seeking new employment opportunities using the skills and knowledge they rely on in their current employment. Some restrictive covenants, such as trade secret and non-solicitation agreements, are critical to a business’ survival, and would still be permitted under the new Bill. While they can serve a valuable purpose to employers, they can be easily abused to limit employment prospects for employees who want to leave a company.

Assembly Bill (No.3715), first introduced in May 2022, addresses how restrictive covenants in employment contracts and severance agreements “discourage innovation and production” by driving skilled workers to other states and “impede the development of business.” More significantly, non-competes place an undue burden on skilled employees that limit their employment.

The post New Jersey State Assembly Considers Expanding Non-Compete Restrictions appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.

BLI moved for summary judgment arguing that Texas law, not New Jersey law, should apply. The trial court agreed with BLI, finding that Texas law governed the issue. Moreover, because Texas law governed the issue, and Texas lacks a whistleblower law in parity with CEPA, Ms. Halliday’s claim failed.  The trial court further noted that even if CEPA applied to the issue, Halliday failed to present evidence that her termination was connected to her complaints. As such, the trial court granted BLI’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. Halliday then appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court sided with Ms. Halliday, vacated the trial court’s ruling and remanded the issue back to the trial court.

The Superior Court’s holding emphasized the core ideas of CEPA as a “remedial legislation” that was created to advance an important social goal, namely “to encourage, not thwart, legitimate employee complaint.” Pursuant to this ideal, the Superior Court looked to the definitional language used in CEPA on the terms “employee” and “employer” and held definitively that, “[CEPA] does not limit the definition of employer to persons or entities located in New Jersey, and the definition of employee is not restricted to individuals performing services in New Jersey.” This landmark holding cements the idea that CEPA is an inclusive legislation that is not fully limited to the borders of New Jersey.

The post Court Reaffirms that New Jersey’s Whistleblower Protection Law Is Not Bound By the Borders of the State appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.

East Bay Drywall is an installation business that bids for projects and then hires subcontractors to complete those projects. Each subcontractor is hired on a per job basis and can bring on as many workers as necessary to complete the job. East Bay Drywall provides the raw materials for the work and the workers bring their own tools and perform the labor. Ultimately, East Bay is responsible for the completed project.

Up until June 30, 2013, East Bay had been reporting employee wages to the DOL. In 2016, an audit was commenced to review the company’s classification of workers it hired between 2013 and 2016, when it was no longer reporting wages. The DOL’s auditor found that four individuals and twelve business entities that had worked for East Bay during that time were improperly classified as independent contractors, and informed East Bay that it owed $42,120.79 in unpaid unemployment and short-term disability contributions. East Bay contested the audit in New Jersey’s Office of Administrative Law, where a judge concluded that only three workers had been misclassified and the other thirteen were in fact independent contractors. However, the final decision still rested with the DOL Commissioner, who ultimately upheld the findings of the audit. The Commissioner found that all sixteen workers at issue were East Bay employees under the ABC test. The company appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner’s determination as to only five of the workers, finding that the other eleven were independent contractors. The Supreme Court granted certification.

The post Misclassification of Employees Leads to Unpaid Unemployment & Missed Disability Contributions appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.

Lieutenants John Hayes and Jamie Lascik joined the State Police in 2001, and have worked closely with New Jersey and the New Jersey State Police (“NJSP”) to create an inclusive and diverse workplace. Hayes, who is an openly gay man, and Lascik, who is a  gay African American woman, alleged  repeated instances of discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Their suit  alleges five violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and provides detailed situations where supervisors and other employees  subjected them to ongoing harassment for their sexual identity. As summarized in the lawsuit, the “ongoing harassment and disparate treatment constitute a continuing violation,” of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and the situation consisted of a pattern of retaliatory hostility, recurring intimidation, and differential treatment by supervisors over the course of many years, up to and including 2021.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is one of the most comprehensive anti-discrimination laws in the country. It prohibits employment discrimination and bias-based harassment on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, race, and multiple other factors. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination also prohibits both the creation and allowance of a hostile work environment that occurs when an employee  shows that their severe and pervasive harassment would not have occurred but for the employee’s protected class membership status, and that a reasonable person of the same protected class would believe that the conditions of employment have been altered to where work environment is hostile or abusive. A hostile work environment based on sexual orientation occurs when an employee is subjected to harassing and unwelcome conduct that occurs because of the employee’s sexual orientation.

The post NJ State Troopers File Lawsuit Following Years of Homophobic and Racial Harassment appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.

Under New Jersey law, employers must maintain an effective policy against unlawful harassment and discrimination at the workplace. With an effective anti-harassment policy in place, harassment investigations may shield an employer from hostile work environment claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is one of the nation’s strongest legal protections for employee civil rights against discrimination and threats of harassment, including sexual harassment. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination requires employers to investigate all complaints of harassment and discrimination promptly, thoroughly and completely.

Serious hostile work environment concerns emerged at the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office after racist jokes’ and offensive social media comments raised tensions amongst assistant prosecutors. In March 2021, the initial internal investigation began with an examination of Assistant Prosecutor Bill Specht and Agent Kelly Sisk over  “offensive and sickening” posts the two  allegedly made on social media and shared via Slack. Screenshots from March 2021, were shared of Specht’s conversations within the workplace Slack chatroom, writing that “Infoshare identifies as Mexican. It sleeps when the sun is hottest.” Specht additionally shared a number of racially offensive Facebook posts, following the police killing of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake. These posts alluded to the exoneration of law enforcement officials in officer-involved shootings, an especially controversial subject for someone in his position.  

The post Hudson County Prosecutors Office Employees to Be Disciplined for Inappropriate Social Media Posts appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act makes discrimination based on disability illegal and protects from retaliation individuals who exercise their rights under that law. Other laws, including state and local laws, such as the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the New York City Human Rights Law, provide employees with additional protections. Anti-discrimination laws continue to apply during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they must coexist with guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and state and local health authorities concerning, among other things, an employer’s right to access employees’ medical information and perform health screenings in the workplace. The intertwining of anti-discrimination laws and public health regulations in the current climate has created a question about whether a COVID-19 infection or perceived infection qualifies an employee for anti-discrimination protection based on disability. The answer will be different depending on whether federal or state law governs the employment relationship, and if state law, which state.

Disability discrimination occurs under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act when an employer treats an employee unfavorably because he or she has a disability, has a history of a disability (such as cancer that has entered remission), or because the employer believes the employee has or used to have a disability. However, not all medical conditions equate to disabilities under the legal definition of the term. A person can show that he or she has a disability in one of three ways: (1) he or she has a physical or mental condition that substantially limits a major life activity (such as walking, hearing, learning, or limits the operation of a major bodily function); (2) he or she has a history of such a disability (past depression that is currently being successfully treated); or (3) he or she is subject to an adverse employment action (such as demotion, termination or a change in job duties or pay) due to the employer’s belief that he or she has a physical or mental impairment that is more than something minor and temporary.

The post Legal Protections for Covid-19 Related Workplace Leaves appeared first on New Jersey Employment Lawyers Blog.