Non-Disparagement Settlements in New Jersey, DOL's AI Guidelines, OSHA Regions Shift - Employment Law This Week®
On March 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that “commissions” must be considered “wages” under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (WPL) and cannot be excluded as “supplementary incentives” because they are tied to...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
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
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
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
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
The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a combined opinion in two cases arising from arbitration agreements in employment contracts. The plaintiffs in the respective cases claimed they fell within section 1 of the Federal...more