Publications — Page 11 of 47 — Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. Firm News & Events

New Jersey Cracks Down Further on Employee Misclassification

Published on: July 19, 2021 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

In early 2020, Governor Murphy signed a series of bills aimed at identifying and penalizing businesses for misclassification of employees as independent contractors. On July 8, 2021, New Jersey enacted four additional laws to further its previous efforts to combat misclassification of workers.

A5890: Injunctions and Stop-Work Orders

This law, effective immediately, allows the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“DOL”) to seek a superior court injunction to prevent ongoing violations of State wage, benefit, and tax laws stemming from employee misclassification. Previously alleged violations were handled administratively before the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”). Under this new law, the Commissioner can bypass the OAL and go straight to court. If the Commissioner prevails, all remedies are available to the victims of misclassification. Additionally, the Court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation and investigation costs. Determining whether to pursue an enforcement action is left to the “sole discretion” of the Commissioner.

New Jersey State Assembly Passes Bill to Protect Community Associations from COVID-19 Liability

Published on: June 25, 2021 | by Blake C. Width

On June 24, 2021, the New Jersey General Assembly unanimously passed bipartisan legislation to limit liability for planned real estate developments due to the spread of COVID-19, should they decide to reopen amenities like pools and fitness centers, as long as sign requirements at the entrances to the common areas are observed.

“This is a win for those homeowners associations that chose to keep communal areas closed in 2020 due to liability concerns relating to Covid-19,” said Assemblyman Brian Bergen, R-Morris, a sponsor of the Assembly version of the bill.

“My bill will allow them to open those areas at their discretion while protecting them from lawsuits should any residents or guests be exposed to or come down with the disease,” Bergen said. “Condominium and townhome residents can get back into their shared pools and gyms.”

Workplace Reopening After the Pandemic: What Employers Need to Know

Published on: June 15, 2021 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

As employers look to reopen their doors following the COVID-19 pandemic, many are faced with a variety of legal questions concerning the issuance of mandatory vaccinations and other workplace safety protocols. To minimize liability and best address these legal challenges, it is critical that employers are aware of both their rights and obligations under state and federal law before bringing employees back into the workplace.

Requiring COVID-19 Vaccinations and Proof of Vaccinations

In the absence of any state law to the contrary, employers are free to mandate vaccinations in the workplace. When making this decision, however, employers must first determine whether a mandated vaccine policy is necessary given the nature of their workplace. For example, certain service industries (i.e. restaurants) may feel compelled to mandate vaccinations in order to appear safer and therefore more attractive to their public clientele. Conversely, other industries may find that mandating vaccines may have a negative impact on employee morale and therefore decide to simply encourage their employees to vaccinate. Employers must carefully engage in a cost-benefit analysis tailored to the nature of their specific business when deciding whether to impose a mandatory vaccine policy.

Governor Murphy Issues Yet Another Executive Order Rescinding Mask Restrictions in Private Workplaces and The Requirement to Accommodate Remote Working on June 4, 2021

Published on: May 27, 2021 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

Yesterday we issued a publication warning that Governor Murphy’s Executive Order 242, lifting the mask and social distancing mandates for workplaces effective May 28, 2021, was limited to businesses that open their doors to the general public. Private businesses that do not open their indoor spaces to the public for the purpose of selling goods, attending activities, or providing services must continue to comply with the mandates.

Further Lifting of the Mask and Social Distancing Requirements for Employees: On the heels of that Executive Order, the Governor’s office issued Executive Order No. 243, which goes into effect on 6:00 a.m. on June 4, 2021. That order lifts the mask and social distancing requirements in private indoor workplaces for those employees who verify they have been “fully vaccinated” as defined by the CDC ( all vaccination shots completed no fewer than 14 days prior). If the employer is unable to verify an employee’s vaccination status, it must require the employee to continue with the mask and social distancing requirements. The Order makes it clear that employers in workplaces not open to the public have the option to impose stricter requirements for mask-wearing and social distancing for employees but shall not restrict employees from wearing masks if they chose to do so.

Lifting of Requirements for Workplace Visitors: In addition, businesses not open to the general public are permitted to allow customers and visitors to enter the workplace without requiring a mask or social distancing, regardless of their vaccination status. As with employees, these businesses can impose stricter mask and social distancing requirements but may not restrict the wearing of masks by visitors.

New Jersey’s Lifting of Mask Mandates DOES NOT Apply to Workplaces Not Open to The Public

Published on: May 26, 2021 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

Many across the State are celebrating Governor Murphy’s Executive Order (EO) No. 242 lifting the mask and social distancing mandates for businesses and workplaces put in place by EO 192 at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, EO 242 states that individuals in “indoor public spaces” are no longer required to comply with these mandates regardless of their vaccination status. Unvaccinated individuals “should” continue to wear mask in indoor public spaces but are not required to do so. EO 242 includes limited exceptions for childcare centers, youth summer camps, schools , health facilities and other facilities.

However, for those business that do not qualify as “indoor public places” the mask and social distancing mandates imposed by EO 192 remain in effect. EO 242 expressly states that “indoor public spaces” do not include indoor workplaces that do not open their indoor spaces to the public for the purpose of selling goods, attending activities, or providing services. According to EO 242, individuals in these indoor workplaces that are not open to the general public must continue to wear face coverings, subject only to the previously recognized exceptions, i.e., when the employee is at distances workstations or offices, and continue six feet social distancing to the maximum extent possible.

While there has been significant media coverage about the Governor’s lifting of restrictions, very few outlets have reported on the continuing requirement to observe COVID-19 protocols in private workplaces. Intuitively, these private places may be safer than those workplaces that invite members of the general public into their premises, but until further relief comes from the Governor’s Office, these requirements remain in effect.

Unequal Inheritance

Published on: May 19, 2021 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

Elizabeth Candido Petite recently spoke with the New York Times for an article The Unequal Inheritance: It Can Work, or It Can ‘Destroy Relationships’. In the article Elizabeth shares her insights on estate planning strategies that can be used when someone decides to bequeath different amounts to their heirs. The strategies she shares come from her experience helping estate planning clients navigate the intricacies of early inheritance, gifting for caregiving children and second marriage families.

The Impact of a Divorce on Estate Planning

Published on: May 19, 2021 | by Nicole A. Kobis and Elizabeth Candido Petite

Births, deaths, marriages, and divorces reshape the definition of family for individuals on a constant basis. It’s no wonder, then, that family law and estate planning often go hand in hand. Estate planners and divorce attorneys alike are often presented with “what if” questions that span both areas of law. Here, a few common questions are explored which can help guide people faced with these life transitions as they make decisions to protect their spouses, children, and assets.

Can I change my Will while I’m getting divorced? Should I?

Although the last thing that many people want to do once the divorce action has begun is engage another attorney, it is actually a good idea to revisit your estate plan at this time. Public policy prohibits disinheriting your spouse, so a spouse who is not named in the other’s Will could file a claim for the “spousal elective share” to receive a portion of the deceased spouse’s estate. The filing of a divorce complaint does not prevent a soon-to-be former spouse from inheriting an equitable share of marital assets. The New Jersey Supreme Court has analyzed what should happen in this situation and applied a remedy which does not allow the surviving spouse a windfall, but at the same time recognizes that at the time of the death, the parties were in fact still married.[1]

Proposed Estate & Gift Tax Reform

Published on: May 19, 2021 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

On March 25, 2021, Senators Sanders and Whitehouse introduced a bill titled “For the 99.5% Act.” If enacted, the following are among some of the significant provisions:

Federal estate tax exemption reduced from $11.7 million to $3.5 million
Gift tax exemption reduced from $11.7 million to $1 million

Mask Mandates Are Falling – What Are Employers To Do?

Published on: May 19, 2021 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

On May 13, 2021 the CDC unexpectedly recommended that, with limited exceptions, fully vaccinated individuals can resume all indoor and outdoor activities without wearing masks or social distancing, except where required by law or workplace guidance. Individuals are deemed fully vaccinated 2 weeks after their final dose of the vaccine.

Under the new guidance, vaccinated individuals can resume pre-pandemic activities even if other individuals in the workplace are not fully vaccinated. In addition, vaccinated individuals are no longer required to undergo COVID-testing or quarantine after travel within the United States.

Not so fast: The collective cheers heard in offices last Thursday afternoon following the CDC’s announcement were short-lived for some jurisdictions that were following the CDC guidance. New York, Illinois and Massachusetts are among the states that have announced that they have or will imminently lift their states’ mask and social distancing mandates for vaccinated individuals. California has announced that it will keep the mandates in place for indoor settings outside the home until June 15^th. New Jersey’s Governor Murphy is taking a more cautious approach, stating that all workplace requirements of EO 192 (mandatory masks, social distancing, daily health screenings, sanitation of work areas) remain in effect and he has not announced any timeline for the lifting of restrictions.

Post-Divorce Modifications & Mediation

Published on: April 29, 2021 | by Honorable Katherine Dupuis, (Ret.)

It is not uncommon in these difficult times for one ex-spouse to seek a modification of the divorce decree. COVID has caused changes in everyone’s life. A party may have lost income or even their job and seek to decrease alimony and child support. Or concerns over the safety of unvaccinated children or the failure of an ex-spouse to receive a vaccination may lead a party to seek to modify visitation.

Litigation over these issues was already time consuming before the pandemic caused a backlog of matters before the courts. You and your family may be better served by bringing your issues to mediation with a retired judge. During my 27 years on the bench I served 6 years as the Family Presiding Judge where I tried hundreds of cases and assisted in the settlement of many more. These cases involved alimony, child support, equitable distribution and custody. I also ruled on hundreds of post judgment applications. I believe my experience can be beneficial to ex-spouses who wish to reach a mutual resolution of their family law issues in a timely manner.