2024 New Jersey Labor & Employment Year End Review

Newark, N.J. (January 27, 2025) - Last year saw a flurry of activity on the labor and employment front in New Jersey's legislature, administrative agencies, and courts. Here, we recap the most significant developments.

Expansion of Employee Rights and Protections in New Jersey

Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights. In 2023, New Jersey enacted the Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights (TWBR), imposing new requirements on temporary help service firms and the companies that hire their temporary workers. In September 2024, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL) issued regulations clarifying some of those requirements.

Temporary help service firms must provide workers with an assignment notification statement before sending them to a job, using a form from the Division of Wage and Hour and Contract Compliance’s website. The statement, which must be in English or the worker’s primary language, must specify required supplies, licenses, and terms of transportation. 

Additionally, temporary workers must receive at least the average hourly pay and benefits earned by regular employees performing similar work at the third-party company. This requires temporary help services firms to gather pay and benefit data for comparator employees - those performing substantially similar work - to ensure compliance.

Temporary help service firms charge third-party clients a placement fee for hiring a temporary worker, but under the TWBR that fee is capped at the firm’s projected 60-day commission minus commissions it would have earned for the worker’s past 12 months of work.

Finally, third-party clients must maintain detailed records related to each temporary worker, including the name, address, and telephone number of each worksite, dates of assignments, the nature of the work performed, hours worked, and wages paid.

Pay Transparency. In November 2024, New Jersey enacted the Pay Transparency Act, which will take effect on June 1, 2025. The law will apply to businesses with at least 10 employees over 20 calendar weeks that operate, employ people, or solicit job applications within the state.  It will require employers to disclose the hourly wage or salary (or its range) and a general description of benefits and other compensation programs for which the employee would be eligible. Additionally, it will require employers to make “reasonable efforts” to notify current employees of promotion opportunities before making promotion decisions. New Jersey employers will need to revise their standard job postings to include wage or salary details and information about benefits and implement systems to notify current employees about promotion opportunities.

Law Against Discrimination & Remote Work. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred an incredible rise in remote work, with many employees working far from their employers’ physical offices. This change raised questions about how the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, age, gender, and other protected characteristics, applies to remote work.

In May 2024, the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) issued guidance clarifying that the LAD covers employees who work remotely for New Jersey-based employers, regardless of where those employees live or work. DCR stresses that, while the LAD protects “all persons” without geographic restriction, the LAD does not necessarily cover people who live in New Jersey but are employed by out-of-state employers. In those cases, other state or federal anti-discrimination laws likely apply. 

Case Law Impacting New Jersey State Employers

Non-Disparagement Provisions. In response to the “#MeToo” movement, the New Jersey Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. § 10:5-12.8(a), banning “non-disclosure provisions” that conceal details of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claims. However, the statute left unclear whether “non-disparagement” provisions were also banned. Now the New Jersey Supreme Court has clarified in Savage v. Township of Neptune, 257 N.J. 204 (2024) that provisions in employment contracts or settlement agreements that prevent disclosure of details of a claim are unenforceable, even if those details disparage the employer. However, the Court explained that “narrowly drawn” non-disparagement provisions may still be enforceable. Further judicial gloss will be needed for guidance as to how narrow such provisions must be to be sustained.

Third Circuit Analyzes Availability of Private Right of Action under CREAMMA. In Zanetich v. Wal-Mart Stores E., Inc., 2024 WL 5037171 (3d. Cir. December 9, 2024), the Third Circuit addressed whether a private cause of action exists for individuals who face discrimination under the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA). Enacted shortly after New Jersey legalized marijuana use and possession in late 2020, CREAMMA prohibits employers from refusing to hire applicants based on their marijuana use. The case involved an individual whose job offer for an asset protection position was rescinded after he tested positive for marijuana. The Third Circuit rejected the claim on the grounds that CREAMMA does not create a private cause of action for employment discrimination. The court explained that CREAMMA does not specifically benefit job applicants who fail marijuana drug tests, the legislature did not intend to imply a remedy for such applicants, and such a remedy would conflict with the legislature’s intent in enacting CREAMMA. The court also held that New Jersey’s public policy exception to at-will employment did not apply. 

New Jersey Supreme Court Analyzes Real Estate Salesperson Classification under the Wage Payment Law.  In Kennedy v. Weichert Co., 257 N.J. 290 (2024), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a written agreement between a real estate salesperson and a real estate broker that defines the salesperson as an independent contractor controls whether the salesperson is defined as an employee or an independent contractor. The contract overrides any other analyses used to determine employment status, including the frequently utilized “ABC Test.”

If you have any questions about these developments, contact the author or editor of this alert. For more information on Lewis Brisbois’ capabilities in this area, visit our Labor & Employment practice page.

Author:

Samuel Howie, Associate

Editor:

Peter T. Shapiro, Partner and Northeast Regional Vice Chair of Labor & Employment Practice