The June issue of the NJSBA Labor and Employment Law Quarterly examines updated laws and recent court cases affecting workers and their employers. Below are brief excerpts summarizing the latest action in the legal world. Labor and Employment Law Section members can read the full analysis in the Quarterly.
Statutory Update: Federal Law Protecting Pregnant and Nursing Workers is Chasing New Jersey’s Leadership
The federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act) were signed by President Joseph Biden on Dec. 29, 2022. The PUMP Act became effective on Dec. 29, 2022. The PWFA is poised to take effect on June 27. The PWFA and PUMP Act provide important expanded protections for pregnant and nursing employees as well as those with pregnancy-related medical conditions and/or who are recovering from childbirth.
Like its preexisting New Jersey counterpart, the federal PWFA mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations necessitated by pregnancy, childbirth, and/or related medical conditions, with a broader scope of protections than were available to pregnant employees under previously existing federal law. The PUMP Act amends and significantly expands the protections of its predecessor, the Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which required most employers to provide break time and an appropriate location to express breast milk to all employees covered by the FLSA.
New Jersey Temporary Worker Law Imposes Requirements on Employers and Staffing Agencies
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed the Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights Act (A1474/S511) into law on Feb. 6, granting protections to the approximately 127,000 temporary workers employed by temporary help service firms/staffing agencies and imposing new requirements on staffing agencies and the third-party clients/worksite employers who utilize temporary workers.
The law covers key areas, including:
§ Equal pay protections;
§ Wage payment and overtime protections;
§ Retaliation prohibitions; and
§ Notification and recordkeeping requirements.
The law provides for both penalties and a private right of action to enforce such rights. The notification and anti-retaliation provisions took effect May 7, while the balance of the law’s provisions go into effect on Aug. 5.
New Jersey Employers: Be WARNed
On April 10, amendments to the Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act (“Act”), colloquially known as New Jersey’s Mini-WARN Act, went into effect. The Act is our state corollary to the federal WARN Act, which requires advance notice to employees terminated during mass layoffs and plant closures. With the amendments, employers in New Jersey now face some of the most onerous requirements regarding downsizing anywhere in the country. It is therefore critical for attorneys advising employers in this state to be able to identify and respond to new traps for the unwary created by the Act’s amendments.
The amendments changed the Act in a few important ways. First, the scope of covered employers and triggering events was significantly expanded. Second, the pretermination notice period was increased from 60 to 90 days. Third, and most significant of the changes, the Act mandates that affected employees receive severance pay following their termination.
The Supreme Court’s Unraveling of the FLSA’s Salary-Basis Test in Helix v. Hewitt
In February, the United States Supreme Court, in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Michael J. Hewitt, concluded that it may not matter how much an employee is compensated, but the method by which the employee is paid, when determining overtime exemption status. Since New Jersey has adopted most of the regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime exemptions, including its definition of “salary basis,” the Court’s holding in Helix can have significant ramifications for both employers and employees in this state and beyond.
The Court rejected Helix’s argument that Hewitt, an employee who made over $200,000 per year, was exempt from overtime compensation. Helix urged the Court that such a holding would give “‘windfalls’ to high earners, disrupt and ‘increase costs’ of industry operations, and ‘impos[e] significant retroactive liability,’” but the majority staunchly relied on the text of the pertinent provision in rejecting Helix’s contentions.