employee covid vaccine requirement OSHA ETSThe vax-or-test legal rollercoaster ride continues, leaving human resource managers’ heads spinning, lawyers prognosticating, and employers simply wondering what comes next.

On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority decision, dealt a substantial blow to the future implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for large employers, putting the ETS on hold indefinitely pending further review by the United States Court of Appeal for the 6th Circuit (which had reinstated the vaccinate-or-test mandate). Among other things, the ETS mandated that all businesses with 100+ employees require their employees to either vaccinate (and provide proof thereof) or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing to attend work.


Continue Reading The ETS, the Supreme Court Ruling, and the Vax-or-Test Rollercoaster: What Should Your Business Do Now?

employee covid vaccine requirement OSHA ETSOn November 5, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), requiring private employers having at least 100 employees companywide (at any given time) to adopt written policies and procedures either mandating vaccination against COVID-19 or requiring employees to choose between vaccination or undergo weekly testing while wearing a face-covering at work.

Continue Reading Employers, the Coronavirus, and the Reinstatement of the OSHA ETS: What Now?

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) covers employers with 100 or more employees. OSHA announced a rule that companies who have 100 or more employees must ensure that their workforce is fully vaccinated against COVID-19 on or before January 4, 2022, or they must test negative for COVID-19 at least once a week.

Continue Reading Vaccine Rules for Employers with over 100 Employees: Here Are the Details

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation that addressed a blind spot in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination that actually enabled private employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of their age. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), codified at N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq., which in relevant part provides that “all persons shall have the opportunity to obtain employment without discrimination,” protects private employees in New Jersey against disparate treatment, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and other unequal employment practices on the basis of certain protected characteristics, including their age.

Continue Reading 70 is the New 40 – New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Expands Protections to Employees Over the Age of 70

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his resignation following the New York State Attorney General’s investigation into accusations of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct from several female staffers. The 168-page investigation report found “the governor engaged in conduct constituting sexual harassment under federal and New York State law.”

Continue Reading Cuomo Resignation a Reminder of the Importance of Anti-Harassment Policies, Grievance Procedures and Workplace Investigations

Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an important decision concerning whether or not a supervisor’s use of two offensive racial slurs could support a hostile work environment claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Rios v. Meda Pharm, Inc., 2021 N.J. Lexis 553 (2020).

Continue Reading New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Two Highly Offensive Comments Could Trigger Employer Liability Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

The EEOC stated that employers can now order their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination shot, provided that they comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), religious exceptions, and other laws.

Continue Reading The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Says Employers Can Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

On January 13, 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, issued an important decision (available here) clarifying the scope of the so-called “good-faith defense” available to employers sued for violating the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJWHL”). The Court’s opinion has significant implications for employers in New Jersey in terms of how they make certain compensation decisions and upon what authority employers can safely rely in ascertaining their legal obligations.

Continue Reading New Jersey Supreme Court Narrowly Construes “Good-Faith” Defense to Wage and Hour Claims

Many employees who are let go or terminated from employment don’t know what happens at work once they’re gone. Sometimes employees know or subsequently learn, whether through word of mouth, social media platforms such as LinkedIn, or the employer’s website, that they have been replaced. Sometimes their replacement is someone significantly younger, yet it is unclear exactly how old the replacement is. In a recent ruling, the Third Circuit has held the lack of knowledge doesn’t matter, at least not at the pleading stage of the litigation.

Continue Reading A “Significant Age Difference” Will Suffice to Advance an Age Discrimination Claim

Once again, but not surprisingly, an arbitration agreement conveyed by an employer and confirmed by an employee via email has been upheld by the New Jersey courts.

In a recent decision, Jasicki v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the motion court’s dismissal of an employee’s claims of sexual harassment, compelling arbitration.  Holding the employee agreed to the company’s mandatory arbitration program communicated via a company-wide email by (1) opening the email, (2) failing to opt-out of the arbitration program, and (3) continuing her employment, the Appellate Division validated email arbitration agreements in the employment context under these circumstances, despite the employee’s assertion she never actually read the email.  In doing so, the Appellate Division reinforced our courts’ approval of these less traditional and more controversial vehicles for securing employee assent to arbitration agreements.  In short, quoting its decision in Jaworski v. Ernst & Young, the Appellate Division wrote: “An email, properly couched, can be an appropriate medium for forming an arbitration agreement.”


Continue Reading Appellate Division Decision Confirms Continued Employment May Constitute Assent to an Employer’s Emailed Arbitration Agreement