Under the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, every non-exempt worker is guaranteed a mandatory minimum hourly wage. New Jersey’s general minimum wage rate has increased steadily in recent years, reaching $15.13 per hour in 2024, $15.49 per hour in 2025, and $15.92 per hour effective January 1, 2026. While employers are permitted to claim a “tip credit” toward this obligation, they must still pay a direct statutory cash wage out of their own pockets. That mandatory direct minimum cash wage was $5.26 per hour in 2024, $5.62 per hour in 2025, and $6.05 per hour in 2026, meaning the maximum tip credit an employer can claim is $9.87 per hour. Crucially, if a worker’s direct cash wage plus actual tips earned do not equal at least the full statutory minimum wage rate of $15.92 per hour, the employer is legally obligated to make up the difference in cash.

An employer cannot simply choose to pay the lower cash rate without meeting strict statutory prerequisite requirements. Before claiming any tip credit, an employer must inform employees in advance of the exact direct cash wage to be paid, the precise tip credit amount claimed, the requirement that 100% of all tips received must be retained by the worker, and the rule that no tip credit applies unless the employee has been fully notified in advance. If an employer fails to provide these mandatory disclosures prior to taking the credit, it is legally barred from claiming any tip credit whatsoever, and the employee is entitled to the full minimum wage (currently $15.92) regardless of whether they have actually received tips.
New Jersey law strictly establishes that all tips are the absolute property of the employee who received them. Employers are prohibited from utilizing employee tips for any purpose other than toward a lawful wage credit or in furtherance of a valid tip pool. This means an employer cannot require an employee to rely solely on tips while paying zero dollars in cash wages, nor can an employer deduct credit card processing fees or transaction charges from a worker’s tips. Furthermore, managers, supervisors, and owners are strictly forbidden from participating in or keeping any portion of employee tip pools.

Special rules also protect tipped workers who perform dual jobs or non-tipped side tasks. When an employee works an unrelated non-tipped role, such as janitorial or maintenance work, the employer cannot take a tip credit for those working hours. Even for related non-tipped side duties like preparing coffee, setting tables, or rolling silverware, if an employee spends more than 20 percent of their workweek performing those tasks, no tip credit can be claimed for the time spent on those duties. Additionally, when tipped employees work over 40 hours in a workweek, they are entitled to overtime compensation at 1.5 times their cash wage rate. Tips or tip credits can never be used to offset the premium portion of overtime pay.

To ensure compliance, New Jersey requires employers to maintain complete and accurate daily and weekly payroll records, including records of all gratuities received, and preserve them for at least six years. Tipped workers in New Jersey have up to six years to file a claim or lawsuit to recover unpaid statutory minimum wages and overtime compensation. An employee paid less than what the law requires may be entitled to recover the full amount of unpaid wages plus liquidated damages of up to 200 percent of the unpaid amount, along with reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs. Furthermore, New Jersey law fiercely protects employees from workplace retaliation, creating a legal presumption that any adverse action taken against a worker within 90 days of complaining about wage violations or filing a claim is unlawful retaliation.

If you work as a tipped employee in New Jersey and suspect that your employer has illegally withheld tips, failed to pay minimum cash wages, imposed unlawful credit card fee deductions, or neglected mandatory tip credit notices, you do not have to fight alone. The experienced employment law attorneys at Resnick Law Group are dedicated to defending worker rights and holding non-compliant employers fully accountable. Contact our firm at (973) 781 1204 or by submitting an online inquiry through our website to find out if you have a case.

The case involved C.S., a truck driver who reported that he was being stalked and subjected to unwanted sexual advances by the company’s Corporate Financial Controller, M.R. Although the company president ordered no contact, M.R. immediately retaliated by leaving an angry note on C.S.’s car. The company eventually hired an outside attorney to conduct an investigation, but C.S. was forced to resign while the investigation was still ongoing. C.S. filed a constructive discharge and sexual harassment lawsuit under the LAD, and in response, the employer asserted a “good faith” defense. However, when C.S.’s attorneys attempted to evaluate whether the investigation was actually conducted in good faith, the company refused to turn over 36 pages of the investigator’s personal notes, internal emails, and draft reports, claiming they were protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges.

Under the landmark New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Payton v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth., an employer who relies on an internal investigation as an affirmative defense waives the privilege for documents related to that investigation. However, Payton left a loophole, stating that documents only “tenuously related” to the defense could still be withheld. In C.S., the Appellate Division defined “tenuously related” for the first time. The court ruled that any document is discoverable if it could either substantiate the employer’s defense or impeach it. If a document shows that the employer unduly curtailed the investigation, interfered with the attorney’s independence, or undermined the integrity of the process, it is sufficiently related to the defense and must be disclosed.

The case involved Robert Lynn, a Black manager at the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY). After transitioning to a new role, Lynn began to experience difficulties with his new manager and faced criticism regarding his performance. Following an ongoing dispute about his performance and an internal complaint regarding comments his former manager made about the Black Lives Matter movement, Lynn emailed his current manager to assert that he was being discriminated and retaliated against. Just thirteen days after he sent this protected complaint, BNY decided to eliminate his position.

The Silver Lining: Timing Can Establish an Initial Case of Retaliation

For employees, the most encouraging takeaway from the Lynn decision is the court’s confirmation of the power of “temporal proximity.” Under the law, to establish an initial (or prima facie) case of retaliation, an employee must show a causal connection between their protected complaint and an adverse action (i.e., termination).

The Third Circuit explicitly agreed that the short thirteen-day window between Lynn’s email complaining of discrimination and BNY’s decision to terminate him was enough, on its own, to legally suggest a connection. This is a significant standard for workers: if your employer fires you or takes serious disciplinary action shortly after you report discrimination, the law will initially presume the employer acted with a retaliatory motive.

The Hurdle: Why You Need an Attorney to Prove “Pretext”
Once an employee establishes their prima facie case, the employer is given the opportunity to present a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the firing. In this case, BNY argued that Lynn was let go because he was the lowest-performing director on his team, emphasizing that his role was eliminated during a planned reorganization.

If an employer offers a seemingly valid excuse, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove “pretext;” in other words, the employee must show that the employer’s stated reason is false and just a cover-up for illegal retaliation. In this case, Lynn was unable to provide enough evidence to show a “pattern of antagonism” or to prove that the company’s reorganization was fabricated. Furthermore, his discrimination claim was severely hindered by the “same actor inference,” a legal concept which notes that if the same manager hires you and then fires you a short time later, it is very difficult to argue they were motivated by bias.

Protecting Your Rights
The Lynn decision underscores a critical reality: simply knowing you were retaliated against is not enough. Employers will almost always construct a “legitimate” business reason such as poor performance or reorganization to justify a wrongful termination. Defeating these excuses requires experienced employment attorneys who know how to dig into company records, uncover inconsistencies in the employer’s story, and identify hidden patterns of antagonism.

Employment laws in New Jersey and New York offer robust protections for workers. If you believe you have been the victim of workplace discrimination or retaliation, your rights may have been violated. Contact the Resnick Law Group today at (973) 781-1204 to provide your preliminary information and schedule a consultation with one of our experienced employment attorneys.

Expanding Employee Eligibility

A major exception in the NJFLA previously left workers at smaller companies and those who have been with their company for less than one year unprotected. Effective July 17, 2026, the law will apply to all employers with 15 or more employees, significantly expanding the pool of eligible New Jersey workers. Furthermore, under the new bill, New Jersey employees will no longer have to wait a full year for their protected leave rights to kick in; eligibility will now begin after just three months on the job and 250 base hours worked during the immediately preceding twelve-month period.

The case involved an hourly laborer who worked on both public and private projects for a non-union contractor. The employee alleged that the company failed to pay properly calculated “blended” overtime rates during weeks when he performed a mix of public and private work, or when he worked under different job titles. The lawsuit also claimed the employer failed to pay for “off-the-clock” tasks, such as driving equipment to worksites and loading trucks, in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (WHL), Prevailing Wage Act (PWA), and Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL). The National Employment Lawyers Association-New Jersey (NELA-NJ) appeared in the case as amicus curiae (friend of the court), joining the plaintiff to argue that the state legislature intended for these remedial wage laws to provide a separate and distinct path for representative actions.

A central issue on appeal was whether the worker could bring a representative lawsuit on behalf of other employees without going through the strict class action certification process required by Court Rule 4:32-1, which can be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the employees, determining that the statutory language of the WHL and PWA operates independently of Rule 4:32-1 and does not require formal class certification. Because these laws are remedial and designed to protect workers from unfair wages, a plaintiff only needs to show that the other workers are “similarly situated” to pursue a representative action.

The case involved Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services, which operated fifteen healthcare facilities across Pennsylvania. Following an investigation, the Department of Labor sued the company on behalf of nearly 6,000 employees for systemic wage and hour violations. At trial, the District Court found that Comprehensive utilized an inaccurate time clock system, which led to employees being paid for their scheduled shifts rather than the actual hours they worked. The court also found that employees regularly worked through meal breaks without compensation and that the company miscalculated overtime rates by failing to include bonuses and shift differentials. The District Court initially ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor, awarding over $35.8 million in damages.

Unfortunately, the Third Circuit reversed a crucial portion of this award related to “overtime gap time.” Overtime gap time refers to unpaid, non-overtime hours worked in a week where an employee also exceeds the overtime threshold. The appellate court firmly held that the FLSA only mandates two things: the payment of a minimum wage and the payment of overtime for hours worked over 40 in a week. Because the statute does not expressly contemplate compensation for “gap time,” the court ruled that employees cannot recover straight-time wages under the FLSA, provided their average hourly pay does not fall below the minimum wage. The court noted that aggrieved employees are not left without recourse, as they may bring basic contract actions or pursue claims under state wage laws to recover these unpaid wages. For example, in New Jersey, employees are covered by the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, which mandates treble damages for wages not paid on time and in the correct amount.

The plaintiff, Darlene Sanders, applied and interviewed for a customer service position with the defendant. After receiving and accepting a job offer, she submitted to a pre-employment drug screening as part of the company’s standard hiring process. The test revealed the presence of cannabis from recreational use within the past thirty days, although Sanders was not under the influence at the time of her application. When Sanders followed up on her start date, a human resources representative told her she could take a repeat drug test within a week at her own expense. Unable to afford the retest, she declined, and the company rescinded the job offer and refused to hire her. Sanders sued the company, alleging it violated her rights under CREAMMA by refusing to hire her on the basis of her recreational cannabis use.

Enacted in 2021 to legalize and regulate recreational cannabis, CREAMMA contains robust anti-discrimination provisions designed to mitigate the debilitating impact that marijuana-related penalties can have on a person’s job prospects and financial health. Specifically, the law dictates that an employer cannot refuse to hire, discharge, or take adverse action against an individual solely because their bodily fluids contain cannabinoid metabolites from lawful cannabis use. While CREAMMA explicitly outlines these worker protections, the statute did not expressly state whether individuals could take their employers to court for violating them. The trial court initially agreed with the employer, suggesting that enforcement should be left to the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC).

The Appellate Division firmly rejected this limitation. By applying a legal standard known as the Cort test, the court determined that the Legislature implicitly intended to give workers the right to sue. This decision ensures that employers can be held accountable if they penalize applicants or employees for engaging in lawful, off-duty cannabis use.

If an employer rescinds a job offer, terminates your employment, or takes adverse action against you solely due to a positive test for cannabis metabolites, your rights under CREAMMA may have been violated. Contact the Resnick Law Group today at (973) 781-1204 to provide your preliminary information and schedule a consultation with one of our experienced employment attorneys.

1.      The “Construction Industry” Exemption

Under the ESLL, employees performing services in the construction industry under a collective bargaining agreement are exempt from the law’s requirements. County Concrete argued that its employees fell under this exemption. The court, however, looked to the plain language of the statute and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to determine the reality of the business. Because the company supplied materials like redi-mix concrete but did not engage in the business of constructing houses, schools, or other structures, the court firmly classified the employer as a “material supplier” and manufacturer, meaning the construction exemption did not apply.

2.     Compliance of Existing PTO Policies

In New Jersey, employers can technically use their existing paid time off (PTO) or vacation policies to satisfy ESLL obligations—but only if those policies meet all of the statute’s strict accrual and usage requirements. County Concrete argued its “vacation” policy was a compliant PTO policy. The court disagreed, heavily weighing several restrictive factors in the employer’s policy:

• Limited Categories of Leave: The employer’s policy only permitted paid leave for vacation, bereavement, and holidays. It failed to provide leave for ESLL-mandated reasons, such as caring for a sick family member, addressing domestic violence circumstances, or attending a child’s school-related event.
• Doctor’s Notes: The company unlawfully required a doctor’s note for illness-related absences of less than three days.
• Management Discretion: Employee requests for leave were subject to the sole discretion of management, and vacation requests required a minimum of one week’s advance notice. Because the policy was far more restrictive than the ESLL allows, the court found it was not a valid substitute for statutory earned sick leave.

3.    The High Cost of Poor Recordkeeping and Inadequate Notices

The ESLL imposes strict notice and recordkeeping obligations on employers, and the Cano decision highlights the severe consequences of ignoring them. Employers are required to post statutory notices of ESLL rights conspicuously and provide individualized written notices to employees in English and other languages, such as Spanish. County Concrete failed on all fronts; the evidence showed the company only posted a notice in an obscure, inaccessible location at just one of its three worksites, and completely failed to provide the required individualized written notices in English or Spanish.

Furthermore, the employer failed to maintain proper records documenting the hours its employees worked and the sick leave they used. Under the ESLL, if an employer fails to retain adequate records, the law creates a presumption that the employer failed to provide the required earned sick leave. To overcome this, the employer must rebut the presumption with “clear and convincing evidence,” which County Concrete failed to do.

4.     Standing for “Similarly Situated” Employees

Perhaps most significantly for employment litigation, the employer argued that the unnamed plaintiffs (103 other employees) lacked standing to recover damages because the plaintiffs never formally certified a class action prior to trial. The Appellate Division rejected this argument, noting that the ESLL’s statutory language specifically permits an employee to maintain an action “for and on behalf of himself or other employees similarly situated.” The court determined that the legislature did not intend to require formal class certification procedures for ESLL claims, allowing the unnamed employees to recover damages without being certified as a class.

Accordingly, the court upheld the judgments against County Concrete, affirming the award of damages—including 200 percent in liquidated damages—to the named plaintiffs and the 103 similarly situated employees.

In wage and hour or sick leave cases, an employer’s policies may not be as compliant as they claim. Courts look at the realities of the policy’s restrictions and the specific statutory definitions, not just the labels an employer uses. If you have been denied your rightful earned sick leave or have faced retaliation for requesting protected time off, you need a professional evaluation. Contact the Resnick Law Group today at (973) 781-1204 to provide your preliminary information and schedule a consultation with one of our experienced employment attorneys.

The plaintiff, Nisha Sanger, was an experienced recruiter who performed services for Cognizant Technology Solutions through an agency agreement with Next Level Business Services (NLB). Her complaint alleged disturbing conduct: inappropriate physical touching by a supervisor and a subsequent “proposition” to engage in sexual relations with a high-level executive to secure her position. When she refused, she was terminated shortly thereafter. However, the court never reached the merits of these harassment and retaliation claims. Instead, the case turned on a single threshold question: Was Ms. Sanger an employee or an independent contractor?

In New Jersey, the legal test for employment status depends entirely on the statute being enforced. Unfortunately, the employee-friendly ABC Test used for wage and hour or unemployment claims does not apply to discrimination lawsuits. The New Jersey Supreme Court has explicitly held that while the ABC Test applies to the Wage Payment Law, the twelve-factor Pukowsky test remains the correct standard for cases brought under the LAD. The twelve factors under Pukowsky are:

1. The employer’s right to control the means and manner of the worker’s performance: This is often considered the most important factor. It weighs toward “Employee” if the company tells you exactly how to do the work, whereas it weighs toward “Contractor” if they only care about the final result.

2. The kind of occupation—supervised or unsupervised: If you are subject to day-to-day oversight, progress meetings, and manager approval for small tasks, it suggests an employee relationship. In this case, the court found the plaintiff had significant control over how she screened candidates, which favored contractor status.

3. The level of skill: Highly specialized professionals with years of experience who do not require training are more likely to be viewed as contractors.

4. Who furnishes the equipment and workplace: Providing your own tools and working from home favors contractor status. Conversely, being required to work at a specific desk using a company-provided laptop and email account typically suggests you are an employee.

5. The length of time in which the individual has worked: A long-term, indefinite relationship suggests employment. A relationship with a “finite” or “limited duration”—such as the 12-month contract in this case—is more consistent with a contractor.

6. The method of payment: Receiving a W-2 with taxes withheld is the hallmark of an employee. Being paid through a business entity (like an LLC) on a 1099 basis without withholdings strongly suggests a contractor relationship.

7. The manner of termination of the work relationship: If the company can fire you at will for any reason, it may look like employment. If the relationship is governed by specific contract termination clauses (like a two-week notice requirement), it suggests a commercial contractor agreement.

8. Whether there is annual leave: Paid time off (vacation or sick days) is a benefit reserved for employees. Not getting paid for days you don’t work is a strong indicator of a contractor.

9. Whether the work is an integral part of the business of the “employer”: This looks at whether you are a “cog” in the company’s daily engine. If the work is “incidental” or “ancillary” to the company’s primary mission—like a recruiter for an IT company—the court may view you as a contractor.

10. Whether the worker accrues retirement benefits: Participation in a 401(k), pension, or stock option plan is evidence of an employee relationship.

11. Whether the “employer” pays Social Security taxes: An employer is legally required to pay half of an employee’s FICA taxes. If you are responsible for your own self-employment taxes, you are likely a contractor.

12. The intention of the parties: This looks at what both sides believed they were creating. If the contract explicitly says “Independent Contractor” and you acknowledge that status in your testimony, it is very difficult to argue otherwise later.

These factors are weighed qualitatively rather than quantitatively, meaning the court looks at the overwhelming balance of the factors rather than just counting which side has more in their favor. While the first factor—employer control—is traditionally considered the most important, the weight assigned to each depends on the specific circumstances of the case. For example, in Ms. Sanger’s case, the court found the following facts highly persuasive and accorded them heavy weight:

1. The Intention of the Parties: Ms. Sanger signed agreements explicitly designating her as an independent contractor.
2. Method of Payment: Payment was made to Ms. Sanger’s business entity rather than to her individually, and no taxes were withheld.
3. Control: While Ms. Sanger did use Cognizant’s equipment, the court found she maintained significant control over her recruiting duties and was not subject to day-to-day supervision regarding how candidates were sourced or screened.

Accordingly, Ms. Sanger was held to be an independent contractor and not subject to the protections of the LAD.

In discrimination cases, employment status may not be black and white. Courts look at the realities of your work, not just the title on your contract. If you have been subjected to harassment or discrimination but are unsure if your “contractor” status prevents you from seeking justice, you need a professional evaluation. Contact the Resnick Law Group today at (201) 781-1204 to provide your preliminary information and schedule a consultation with one of our experienced employment attorneys.

New Jersey law currently sets the minimum wage at $15.49 per hour for most employers. This is the minimum rate that must pay to non-exempt workers. Both New Jersey and federal law require time-and-a-half for hours worked over forty in a week; thus, if a non-exempt worker makes $18 per hour and works fifty hours in a week, the employer must pay them $27 per hour for the last ten of those hours worked.

Failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, also known as “wage theft,” may cost workers across the country as much as $50 billion each year. This amount exceeds all other forms of theft, such as burglaries and robberies, combined. Private lawsuits and government regulators only recover a fraction of the amount lost to wage theft.

The public also loses because of wage theft. Worker misclassification alone may cost New Jersey taxpayers around $300 million per year in lost contributions to unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes.

The LWD’s lawsuit attempts to avoid a common problem with wage claims in the construction industry. A construction site can be a chaotic place. The general contractor is in charge of the entire site, but they may delegate various responsibilities to subcontractors, so one company’s employees might perform work under the direction of a different company for at least part of their working hours. Thus, if a dispute arises, each company might (and usually does) argue that another company is liable instead: a general contractor might try to shift responsibility for alleged wage violations onto a subcontractor, while subcontractors may claim that wages fall under the general contractor’s purview. The LWD sued all major companies involved in the project, ensuring that anyone who might be responsible would be present in the case.

The lawsuit asserts six causes of action against all defendants:
– Failure to pay overtime
– Failure to timely pay wages
– Failure to maintain and produce hour and wage records
– Failure to maintain and produce earned sick leave records
– Failure to provide earned sick leave
– Failure to contribute to funds for unemployment, disability, and workforce development

It asserts another three causes of action against certain defendants, including general contractors and subcontractors:
– Failure to pay minimum wage
– Misclassification of employees in the construction industry
– Misclassification of employees generally

The lawsuit also alleges a child labor violation against one subcontractor.

Employees in New Jersey and New York can claim compensation if their employers have violated certain legal rights, including failure to pay minimum wage or overtime. The employment attorneys at the Resnick Law Group are available to help you understand your rights. Please contact us at 973-781-1204 or online today to schedule a confidential consultation to discuss your case.