Governor Murphy Allows Nonessential Construction to Resume


Jonathan M. Korn
 and Michael R. Darbee

On May 13, 2020, Governor Phil Murphy signed Executive Order 142 (“EO 142”). Under EO 142, all “nonessential” construction projects, as defined in EO 122, “are permitted to resume” as of 6:00 a.m. on Monday, May 18, 2020.

The order requires contractors who will resume work to adopt social mitigation and infection control policies designed to stop the spread of the coronavirus. For example, EO 142 bans nonessential visitors from entering the job site; requires at least six feet of social distancing; prohibits meetings of 10 or more people; requires staggering work times and break times; and requires contractors to identify and control access to “high-risk areas,” such as bathrooms.

Also, under EO 142 businesses must require workers and visitors to wear cloth face coverings (or a more protective covering, such as a surgical mask) and must require workers to wear gloves. Every business must provide masks and gloves to its employees at its own expense. Moreover, businesses must deny access to a person who refuses to wear a face covering for non-medical reasons. However, if a person refuses to wear a face covering for medical reasons, the business and its staff cannot demand proof of the stated condition.

Finally, businesses must maintain other infection control practices. For example, business must implement policies regarding hand washing, coughing and sneezing etiquette, and proper tissue disposal. If there is no running water at the job site, businesses must provide portable washing stations with soap or hand sanitizer (containing at least 60 percent ethanol or 70 percent isopropanol). Moreover, “high touch” areas, such as bathrooms and equipment, must be regularly sanitized.

The policies are detailed in the text of EO 142 and must be displayed “in conspicuous signage” at the entrances and throughout the worksite. If you intend to commence nonessential construction, you should carefully review the text of EO 142 and implement appropriate workplace policies.

More Money, More Problems? New Jersey Significantly Expanding Family Leave Benefits

Thomas J. Szymanski

The bill (NJ A3975), revamping the New Jersey Family Leave Act (“NJFLA”) and Family Leave Insurance (“FLI”), was passed in both houses of the New Jersey Legislature on January 31, 2019. Governor Murphy is expected to sign the bill today, with some changes effective immediately.

As a reminder, NJFLA provides job-protected leave for workers at large employers to care for family members. On the other hand, FLI provides wage-replacement benefits to workers during a leave used to care for a family member. FLI applies regardless of the size of the employer and is funded by employee payroll deductions.

Summary of the most significant changes: Continue reading “More Money, More Problems? New Jersey Significantly Expanding Family Leave Benefits”

Does a CFA Claimant Need to Plead “But for” Causation?

Seth J. Lapidow and Ethan M. Simon

New Jersey courts appear to be trending toward requiring Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) claimants to plead “but for” causation to survive dismissal. On Aug. 23, Judge Anne E. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a class action CFA claim Rudel Corporation filed against Heartland Payment Systems, a credit and debit processor. See Rudel Corp. v. Heartland Payment Systems, No. 16-2229, 2016 WL 4472944 (D.N.J. Aug. 23, 2016). According to the complaint in Rudel, the plaintiff operated a restaurant and used Heartland to process credit card transactions. In spring 2014, Heartland sent a letter to Rudel and other clients announcing a new program through which Heartland would charge a lower rate on American Express transactions. Several months later, Heartland indicated on Rudel’s monthly account statement that it had incorrectly calculated the rates for the new American Express program and had to adjust the rates. Allegedly, Heartland also retroactively charged the increased rate. Continue reading “Does a CFA Claimant Need to Plead “But for” Causation?”