Author: Gibbons P.C.

New Jersey Guidance Establishes That Employers Can Require That Employees Receive COVID-19 Vaccine to Enter Workplace

With COVID-19 vaccinations becoming more accessible to individuals, the question on many employers’ minds is whether the employer can now require its employees to be vaccinated in order to return to the workplace. On March 19, 2021, the New Jersey Department of Health (DOH) addressed this question and published guidance stating that an employer can require that its employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine to return to the workplace. The DOH guidance, however, does include exceptions to mandatory vaccination policies implemented by employers as follows: if an employee cannot get the COVID-19 vaccine because of a disability that precludes him or her from being vaccinated; where an employee’s doctor has advised the employee not to get the vaccine while pregnant or breastfeeding; or where an employee has a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance that precludes him or her from receiving the vaccine, an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation from its mandatory vaccine policy – unless doing so would impose an undue burden on its operations. In the event an employee seeks to be exempt from a mandatory vaccination policy for medical reasons (described above), his or her employer may request medical documentation from the employee to confirm the employee (i) has a disability precluding him or her from vaccination, or (ii) has been...

New York State Enacts Law Providing Paid Time Off for COVID-19 Vaccination

Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed legislation S2558A/A3354-B granting all public and private employees in New York paid leave to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. The new legislation, which is effective as of March 12, 2021 and expires on December 31, 2022, amends the New York Civil Service Law (with respect to public employees), along with the New York Labor Law, and provides public and private employees with up to four hours of paid leave per vaccine injection. In connection with this legislation, the New York Labor Law was amended to add Section 196-c, which provides that: New York employees must receive paid COVID-19 vaccine leave of up to four hours per vaccine injection. Thus, employees receiving a two-injection COVID-19 vaccine (such as those currently offered by Pfizer and Moderna) will receive up to eight hours of paid leave to obtain the vaccine. The “four hour” maximum does not apply to an employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) providing a greater number of hours of leave to obtain the vaccine or where an employer authorizes additional time off for employees to receive the vaccine. The leave must be paid at an employee’s regular rate of pay. The leave cannot be charged against “any other” employee leave. Accordingly, employers cannot require employees to use other available...

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Includes Significant Mental Health Investment

Providers of mental health services may be eligible for funding, loans, and grants as detailed below. On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. One key component of the $1.9 trillion initiative is an investment of more than $3.5 billion toward behavioral and mental health services. This funding covers a variety of providers and mental health consumers. Section 2701 Funding for Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services $1.5 billion for carrying out certain aspects of the Public Health Service Act (“PHS Act”), as they relate to mental health: 42 U.S.C. 300x et seq. – block grants for states providing community mental health services for adults with serious mental illnesses and children with serious emotional disturbances 42 U.S.C. § 290aa-4(c) – behavioral and mental health statistics Section 3052 Funding for Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse $1.5 billion for carrying out certain aspects of the PHS Act, as they relate to mental health Block grants for states Section 2703 Funding for Mental and Behavioral Health Training for Healthcare Professionals, Paraprofessionals, and Public Safety Officers $80 million to award grants to health professional schools, academic health centers, state and local governments, and other appropriate public and private nonprofit entities, to plan, operate, or participate in trainings and...

Gibbons Is NJ’s Top Lawyer-Lobbying Firm for 13th Straight Year

For the thirteenth year in a row, Gibbons P.C. has been ranked the #1 lawyer-lobbying firm in New Jersey, according to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJ ELEC), which has just released its report on 2020 lobbying expenditures in the state. Gibbons has also ranked sixth in the state among all lobbying firms. “These rankings reflect our lawyer-lobbyists’ significant influence in Trenton and their growing presence in Washington, DC,” says Patrick C. Dunican, Jr., Chairman and Managing Director of Gibbons. “They are able to participate in the state and federal legislative and regulatory processes in constructive ways that help our clients seize the business opportunities and navigate the challenges that can result from those processes.” In 2020, the Gibbons Government & Regulatory Affairs Department reported a 20 percent increase in number of clients and ten percent increase in revenues over the prior year. Based just steps from the New Jersey State House in Trenton and supported by additional resources from the firm’s Newark and Red Bank offices, the Department offers a broad range of services and experience in state legislative affairs, regulatory affairs and departmental actions, administrative law, business incentives, government procurement and contracting, and political and campaign finance compliance. In addition, the firm’s Washington, DC office provides Gibbons lawyer-lobbyists a base from...

New Jersey Supreme Court Decision Explains Requirements to Assert Statutory Good Faith Defense to Wage and Hour Claims

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that employers could not rely on determinations made by subordinate employees of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“Department”) to support a “good faith” exemption from New Jersey’s overtime pay mandates, instead finding such determinations must come from either the Commissioner of the Department or the Director of the Division of Wage and Hour Bureau. In Elmer Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, the plaintiff Elmer Branch, a truck driver, filed a putative class action lawsuit against his employer Cream-O-Land Dairy (“Cream-O-Land” or “the defendant”) for payment of overtime wages under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (WHL). The plaintiff claimed that he, along with other “similarly situated truck drivers” employed by the defendant, were eligible for overtime pay at 1½ times their regular hourly wage. Cream-O-Land asserted two principal arguments in defense of the lawsuit: (1) it is exempt from the overtime requirements of the WHL because it is a “trucking industry” employer (and thus required to pay employees only 1½ times the minimum wage as opposed to 1½ times the employees’ regular rate of pay); and (2) it relied in “good faith” on certain prior determinations made by the Department finding that Cream-O-Land qualified as a “trucking industry employer” under the WHL and, therefore,...

NJDEP Extends Some Deadlines for Remediation Activities

In light of the disruptions created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has again extended certain deadlines (or, in the language of the relevant statutes and regulations, timeframes) for the completion of various remediation activities at contaminated sites. On February 1, 2021, NJDEP issued a Notice of Rule Waiver/Modification/Suspension pursuant to Executive Order No. 103, which was issued on March 9, 2020. It follows similar notices issued on April 24, 2020 and August 17, 2020. The new notice extends some regulatory and mandatory timeframes reached during the effective period of Executive Order 103 for a total of 455 days (including the prior 270-day extensions), with corresponding extensions of subsequent timeframes. For remediations subject to the statutory timeframes in N.J.S.A. 58:10C-27 and -27.1, requiring completion of the remedial investigation by May 7, 2014 or May 7, 2016, it extends the timeframe for completing the remedial action from May 6, 2021 to May 6, 2022. Parties seeking to benefit from the extensions must have retained a licensed site remediation professional (LSRP). While surely not among the most significant effects of the pandemic, these changes in remediation timeframes are among the hardest to follow. Parties conducting (or even simply monitoring) remediation projects, their counsel, and their LSRPs would do well to keep...

OSHA Releases New Workplace Guidance on COVID-19

On January 21, 2021, President Biden issued the Executive Order on Protecting Worker Health and Safety (“Executive Order”) directing, among other things, that the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issue, within two weeks, revised guidance to employers on workplace safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, consider establishing emergency temporary standards for workplace COVID-19 protections, and, if needed, issue such standards by March 15, 2021. The Executive Order also requires that OSHA launch a national program to focus its enforcement efforts on those violations that place the greatest number of employees at serious risk or conflict with anti-retaliation principles and publicize its efforts through a multilingual outreach campaign to inform employees of their rights under OSHA’s applicable regulations, with special emphasis on communities hit hardest by COVID-19. On January 29, 2021, as directed by the Executive Order, OSHA issued new guidance, entitled Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigation and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace (the “Guidance”). The Guidance, which is supplemented by industry-specific measures, provides recommendations to assist employers in creating and maintaining safe and healthy workplaces, while also describing OSHA’s current safety and health standards. The new Guidance is not substantially different from previous OSHA guidance, but it sets a different tone – signaling greater support for OSHA enforcement. Importantly, the Guidance...

Opening Pandora’s Box: A Preliminary Showing of Spoliation May Result in the Compelled Production of a Litigation Hold Notice

In Radiation Oncology Servs. of Cent. N.Y., P.C. v. Our Lady of Lourdes Mem’l Hosp., Inc., the New York Supreme Court reminded litigants that while litigation holds are generally protected by the attorney-client privilege or under the attorney work product doctrine, a preliminary showing of spoliation of evidence may compel the production of an offending party’s litigation hold documentation. In this litigation involving clinical privileges related to an exclusive radiation oncology services agreement, the plaintiffs identified seven specific instances of spoliation by the defendants. These included certain emails that the defendants produced in hard copy form, but for which they were unable to produce the corresponding electronic version and the related metadata – which the court seemed to globally refer to as the “electronically stored information,” or ESI, relating to the emails – because they had been deleted. The plaintiffs successfully argued that the failure to produce the ESI constituted spoliation because it deprived them of the ability to understand whether there were follow-up discussions with other individuals about the content of the communications, including those who may have been copied on the communications or follow-up emails. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of the defendants’ litigation hold notice because it found that the permanent deletion of the ESI “potentially deprived...

Thomson West Releases 2020-2021 Update of Business Law Deskbook, With Two Environmental Law Chapters Authored By Gibbons Attorney

The recently released 2020-2021 update of the Thomson West New Jersey Business Law Deskbook includes chapters authored by Paul M. Hauge, Counsel in the Gibbons P.C. Environmental Law Department. Mr. Hauge authored Chapter 26, which discusses the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Chapter 27, on New Jersey Environmental Law. The Deskbook, updated annually to reflect statutory, regulatory, and judicial developments, is designed to give attorneys user-friendly primers on roughly 40 areas of business law. Gibbons Environmental Law Department Director Susanne Peticolas pioneered the firm’s involvement with the Deskbook in 2003, authoring the Gibbons contributions until 2007 and sharing authorship with Mr. Hauge between 2008 and 2019.

FCC Reverses Course and Finds That Government Contractors Are “Persons” Under the TCPA

Last month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an Order on Reconsideration, overturning Commission precedent by clarifying that federal, state, and local government contractors are “persons” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and therefore must, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)-(D), obtain prior written consent to make certain calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice; to initiate a call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice; to use a fax machine or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement; or to use an automatic telephone dialing system in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line business are engaged simultaneously. This ruling is the latest in the Commission’s efforts to protect consumers from unwanted robocalls. The TCPA prohibits certain unsolicited calls made by any “person,” which includes an “individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, or corporation,” without the prior written consent of the consumer. In 2016, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling stating that the federal government and federal government contractors were not “persons” under the TCPA, and therefore, the limitations on calling enumerated in Section 227(b)(1)(A)-(D) did not apply to them. The FCC reasoned that there is a longstanding presumption that the word “person” does not include the sovereign and that,...