Full Service Law Firm in Mt. Laurel Township, NJ | Capehart Scatchard

employers

Form I-9 compliance has long been a critical responsibility for U.S. Employers. Federal law requires employers to complete and retain Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, for every employee in order to verify their identity and authorization to work in the United States. While employers have always been expected to maintain accurate Form I-9 records, recent changes implemented by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) have heightened the importance of careful and accurate completion of these forms.

ICE recently issued guidance that significantly increases the risks associated with even seemingly minor errors on Form I-9. Under the new guidelines, several clerical mistakes that were previously classified as technical violations are now considered substantive violations, exposing employers to immediate and costly penalties during an I-9 audit.

ICE has the authority to audit an employer’s I-9 records at any time by issuing a Notice of Inspection. Once a Notice of Inspection is received, employers generally have only three business days to produce all requested Form I-9s, along with any supporting documentation that has been requested. This short turnaround period leaves little time to identify and correct deficiencies after an audit has begun.

I-9 violations fall into two categories: (1) substantive violations and (2) technical/procedural violations. Historically, technical/procedural violations involved clerical or administrative errors that did not directly impact an employee’s work authorization. Employers previously were given ten business days, after receiving notice, to correct these deficiencies before penalties were assessed. By contrast, substantive violations historically involved failures related to an employer’s obligation to verify employment eligibility and work authorization. These violations can result in immediate fines, which range from $288 to $2,861 per violation.

The new guidelines, released by ICE, change these longstanding rules by re-classifying several technical violations as substantive violations. As a result, employers may no longer have the opportunity to correct these mistakes before penalties are imposed.

Examples of errors that were previously considered technical errors but are now substantive include (but are not limited to):

  • Missing date of birth
  • Missing date of hire
  • Incorrect use of Spanish Language I-9 Forms outside of Puerto Rico
  • Preparer/translation error
  • Failure to enter rehire dates where applicable
  • Failure to date section 1 and/or 2 of the I-9 Form
  • Failure to check the “alternative procedure” box to indicate that remote verification was used
  • Failure to be an active E-Verify participant at the time an alternative procedure was used

Given these changes, employers should proactively review their I-9 compliance practices before an audit occurs. Recommended steps include conducting an internal I-9 audit, reviewing electronic verification systems, evaluating remote onboarding procedures, and ensuring that all personnel responsible for completing Form I-9s receive thorough and up-to-date training.

With increasing scrutiny of I-9 compliance and expanding the scope of substantive violations, employers can no longer afford to treat paperwork errors as minor administrative issues. Taking preventive action now can help avoid costly penalties in the event of an audit.

On January 19, 2026, former Governor Phil Murphy signed into law a bill that significantly reshapes employee leave rights and employer obligations in New Jersey. The legislation expands leave coverage by lowering the minimum number of employees an organization must have in order to be subject to the law and by reducing the length of time an employee must work for an employer to become eligible for leave. The purpose of the law is to ensure that newer employees and employees of small organizations receive the protection of New Jersey’s leave law.

Previously, New Jersey’s Family Leave Act (“NJFLA”) provided employees working at organizations with 30 or more employees up to 12 weeks of leave to bond with a new child, care for a sick family member, or for other qualifying reasons, with guaranteed job reinstatement after the leave. To qualify, employees were required to have worked for their employer for at least 12 months and must have worked a minimum of 1,000 hours in the previous year.

The new law significantly eases eligibility requirements. Employees now qualify for leave and job protection after just three months of employment with their employer and only 250 hours worked in the past year. Furthermore, the law reduces the threshold for employers, meaning organizations with as few as 15 employees (down from the current 30) are now subject to these provisions. For public entities, employees are already eligible for NJFLA leave regardless of employer size, and the only change is the shortened eligibility period of three months of employment and 250 hours worked in the past year.

It is important to note that the law does not alter the fact that employees who take NJFLA leave are eligible to receive up to 85% of their average weekly wages, subject to the maximum weekly benefit cap, while on leave through the New Jersey Family Leave Insurance (“NJ-FLI”) program.

For employers, this legislation represents a major shift. With fewer eligibility requirements, a wider range of employees are now able to take leave with guarantees of job protection, creating new compliance obligations. Employers will need to update policies and procedures to ensure that they comply with these expanded requirements and properly manage leave requests.   

While a limited number of states already provide job protection for employees outside the scope of the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), New Jersey’s approach positions it as a leader in this area.

I have written about this topic before but thought it is worthwhile to address the issue again because I am seeing a disturbing uptick in these types of claims: Retaliation.

Too often, when a claim is filed by an employee, an employer becomes angry and wants to fight back and get revenge against the employee for asserting the legal claim. The temptation is real for many employers. They feel betrayed that an employee would accuse them of violating the law. It can get especially personal when an employee accuses an employer of engaging in wrongful discrimination. No one wants to be called a bigot or find themselves on the wrong end of any legal case. But an employer must fight the urge to engage in retaliatory action against an employee for exercising protected legal rights. Mounting a strong legal defense to a filed claim should always be the goal when faced with a legal claim. Retaliation of any kind should not be part of that strategy!

Just about all of the major federal and state anti-discrimination laws protect employees against retaliation in exercising rights vested under these laws. Whistleblower laws likewise provide protection against retaliation. So ironically do many employer policies themselves. Yet, employer retaliation happens. And when it does, it will often provide an employee with an even stronger legal claim than the one that was originally being pursued, which only makes it harder to mount a successful legal defense. 

When I think of retaliation claims, I am reminded of what William Shakespeare once wrote in his play “Othello” about jealousy being “a green-eyed monster.” In the realm of labor and employment law, one can fittingly say the same thing about retaliation and its own resemblance to that same famous literary creature. Employers must fight the urge to succumb to the “green-eyed monster” of retaliation. Just as jealousy wreaks havoc in Othello’s life in the famous Shakespeare play, so can retaliation for an employer in its efforts to remain compliant with labor and employment laws.

Along with fighting that retaliation urge, employers should always ground their workplace decisions in legitimate (and well-documented) non-retaliatory reasons for any actions that you take against an employee. That way, you will always give yourself a strong viable defense to such allegations. Increasingly, I am seeing sophisticated employees when they know their employment time is short go on the aggressive and claim that the employer is doing something illegal in the hope that it will cause the employer to delay any adverse employment action against the employee. In those situations, it is more critical than ever that employers have a well-documented history of the employee’s performance problems to counter any contention that the action is occurring for a retaliatory reason.  

The temporary taste of vengeance is fleeting, just ask Othello. Fight that temptation at all costs so you too do not become just another tragic figure like Othello! In the end, retaliation claims can ultimately cost your company a lot of money, so always make good employment decisions rooted in legitimate business reasons.              

I was recently reading a newspaper (yes, some people still do that!) and came across an article about an all-too-familiar situation for some employers. The article reported a case involving a former employee of an employer who was fired after he intervened as a witness on behalf of a co-worker who alleged that she was sexually harassed. The employee sued the employer claiming a retaliatory firing because of his involvement as an unfavorable witness to the company on the co-worker’s sexual harassment claim. The employer argued that the employee was fired for performance issues, but the jury did not buy the argument. The fired employee was ultimately awarded $3 million dollars in damages. 

As I was reading the article, it reminded me of what William Shakespeare once wrote in his play “Othello” about jealousy being “a green-eyed monster.”  In the realm of labor and employment law, one can say the same thing equally about retaliation and its own resemblance to that same famous literary creature.

Too often, when a claim is filed by an employee, an employer becomes angry and wants to fight back and get revenge against the employee for asserting the legal claim.  The temptation is real for many employers. They feel betrayed that an employee would accuse them of violating the law. It can get especially personal when an employee accuses an employer of engaging in wrongful discrimination. No one wants to be called a bigot or find themselves on the wrong end of any legal case. But an employer must fight the urge to engage in retaliatory action against an employee for exercising protected legal rights. Mounting a strong legal defense to a filed claim should always be the goal when faced with a legal claim. Retaliation of any kind should not be part of that strategy!

Just about all of the major federal and state anti-discrimination laws protect employees against retaliation in exercising rights vested under these laws. Whistleblower laws likewise provide protection against retaliation. So do ironically many employer policies themselves. No doubt, most employers like the one here likely had its own anti-harassment policy that urged employees to invoke its procedures without fear of any workplace reprisals. Yet, employer retaliation happens. And when it does, it will often provide an employee with an even stronger legal claim than the one that was originally being pursued, which only makes it harder to mount a successful legal defense.  

Thus, employers must fight the urge to succumb to the “green-eyed monster” of retaliation. Just as jealousy wreaks havoc in Othello’s life in the famous Shakespeare play, so can retaliation for an employer in its efforts to remain compliant with labor and employment laws.

The temporary taste of vengeance is fleeting, just ask Othello, or this employer as it is writing out that $3 million check. Fight that temptation at all costs so you too do not become just another tragic figure like Othello!             

Editor: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

Below is an article written by my colleague, Ralph R. Smith, 3rd, Esq., Co-Chair of our firm’s Labor & Employment Group. If you wish to view additional articles and/or be kept up-to-date with labor & employment issues, visit our HR Resource blog by clicking here.

The Pay Transparency Act of New Jersey (“Act”) became law on November 18, 2024, and goes into effect on June 1, 2025. It requires employers to disclose salary ranges in all job postings, including internal and external postings for new jobs, promotions, and transfers. The law further requires that the employer provide a general description of benefits and other compensation programs for which the successful candidate may be eligible. 

The Act applies to employers with 10 or more employees over 20 calendar weeks and who do business, employ persons, and or who take applications for employment within New Jersey, including the State, any county or municipality, or any instrumentality thereof. The law, however, does not indicate whether you count all company employees or only those employed in New Jersey in determining its coverage.

Employers under the Act must disclose the hourly wage, salary, or salary range for job openings and provide a general description of benefits and other compensation programs available for the selected candidate. The law further provides, however, that this requirement does not “prohibit an employer from increasing the wages, benefits, and compensation identified in the job opening posting at the time of making an offer for employment to an applicant.”

In addition, employers must make “reasonable efforts” to announce internal and external promotional opportunities to current employees in the affected department(s) before making a promotion decision. 

The law contains various exceptions to its requirements. The notice requirement for promotions does not apply to promotions based on years of experience or performance, or to promotions made on an emergent basis due to an unforeseen event. The law also expressly excludes temporary help service firms and consulting firms registered with the Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Law and Safety from the pay and benefit disclosure requirements for job postings posted for the purpose of identifying qualified applicants for potential future job openings. However, this exception does not apply to job postings for existing job openings.

Finally, the law contains certain new employee protections. Employers are prohibited from discriminating against or discharging employees for exercising their rights under the law, including discussing or disclosing pay-related information, and from asking about salary history during the hiring process. Significantly, the law does not contain a private cause of action. Rather, the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development may enforce the provisions of this law by seeking civil penalties in an amount no greater than $300 for the first violation and $600 for each subsequent violation.

With the June 1 enforcement date just around the corner, employers should review all internal and external job postings to ensure that they are complying with the new law and likewise confirm that any outside recruiting agencies that are being utilized are also meeting these new transparency requirements. Moreover, if you do business in states other than New Jersey, be aware that New Jersey is not the only state with this type of law: similar laws exist in other states (e.g., Colorado, Maryland, and California to name just a few) so multi-state employers are wise to take steps to comply with the transparency laws in those states as well.   

With competing federal court decisions currently existing on whether the Final Non-Compete Rule issued by the Federal Trade Commission was valid, and would go into effect on September 4, 2024, employers were left with a major predicament at their disposal. However, last week, employers breathed a sigh of relief after a federal judge in Texas issued a ruling invalidating this final rule while issuing a nationwide injunction precluding its enforcement anywhere in the United States. In issuing its final decision, the district judge determined that the FTC lacked the legal authority to promulgate such a rule. This means that employers will no longer have to meet the various requirements of the Final Non-Compete Rule. Thus, for now, all non-compete agreements in effect will remain enforceable for the foreseeable future, while the FTC contemplates its next move that could include filing an appeal of the Texas decision. 

We will continue to keep you informed of any new developments. No doubt, this will not be the last time that efforts are made to eliminate or greatly restrict non-compete restrictions. We have already seen many states impose limitations, and while it has not yet happened in New Jersey, many bills have floated around the Legislature that are designed to greatly restrict under what circumstances non-competes may be enforced.  So, for now, employers in New Jersey have dodged a legal bullet. Whether such continues in the future remains to be seen.     

 As many of you know, back in April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) adopted a final rule that would for all intents and purposes ban enforcement of almost all non-compete agreements. Since that time, I have received multiple questions about whether the rule will ever be enforced. Right now, the effective date of the rule is September 4, 2024, but unfortunately it is anyone’s guess as to whether the rule will ever be enforced.  

Shortly after enactment of the final rule, several lawsuits were filed challenging its validity and the authority of the FTC to enact such a rule. In these cases, the parties asked the courts to enjoin and stop enforcement of the rule. So far, the courts have split on this issue. In Texas, a federal judge found that the FTC lacked the power to implement the rule and preliminarily enjoined its enforcement, but it did so only against the plaintiffs in the case and not everywhere nationwide. More recently, just last week, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled to the contrary, finding that the rule is indeed enforceable and can go into effect on September 4. These decisions do little to clarify whether the FTC had the power to enact the final rule and also fail to provide the guidance that employers want and need in determining what will happen to existing non-compete agreements.

If the FTC final rule goes into effect on September 4, it will drastically change the non-compete horizon. Most non-compete agreements will be unenforceable, with the exception of highly compensated senior executive employees (i.e. those making at least $151,164), and employers will likewise need to provide written notices to employees letting them know that their non-compete restriction is no longer enforceable. So, for the next month, the best advice we can give on ultimate enforcement is to stay tuned and see if we have any additional litigation developments that provide any further clarity on what employers will need to do after September 4.

In past articles I have referenced many times the potential audit risks that companies face if they are not in compliance with both federal and state wage and hour laws. As businesses began the quest to return to what was pre-COVID-19 pandemic normalcy, so too did the United States and New Jersey Departments of Labor as the agencies again started to aggressively audit companies for legal compliance. While compliance with each of the specific federal wage and hour laws continues to be the primary focus of these audits, the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”) added one more compliance issue that is now an important part of that agency’s audit process. This emerging issue now presents a potential trap for the unwary about which employers must be ever vigilant to avoid a failing audit result.

So, I suspect at this point that many of you are wondering what this new issue can be that has sparked the interest of the NJDOL. Is it a new wage and hour requirement under a new recent law? Well, no, believe it or not, it involves New Jersey’s Paid Sick Law. On first glance, this law seems very different from the usual wage and hour rules that the NJDOL enforces. However, when you examine the paid sick time law closer, you see that the New Jersey legislature gave the NJDOL responsibility for monitoring employer compliance with the requirements imposed by the paid sick time law. And now during wage and hour audits by the NJDOL, the agency is using these examinations as an opportunity to remind employers about their recordkeeping and tracking obligations under the law. I found this out firsthand in a recent audit that I handled with the NJDOL.

Hopefully, as every employer who is doing business and has employees in New Jersey knows, the paid sick time law gives employees the opportunity to utilize paid sick time for certain absences from work. Whether employees obtain the time through actual work accrual, or where employers grant employees such time at the beginning of each benefit year, employees are entitled to use up to 40 hours of sick time in any benefit year. The statute also recognizes the right to carry over unused time from benefit year to benefit year or alternatively allows a buyback arrangement to be negotiated between the employee or employee. Along with these basic requirements, the law also directs that employers must keep detailed records relating to both the amount of leave accrued by or provided to the employer and the use of that time so there is effective tracking of such use. It is regarding these recordkeeping rules that the NJDOL has taken a special interest in its current auditing activities.

If your company is ever selected for a wage and hour audit by the NJDOL, you are now being asked to produce such accrual/tracking records so that the agency can confirm that you are meeting these recordkeeping requirements. If there are deficiencies in such recordkeeping, the NJDOL is holding employers accountable as just happened in a recent audit where a client of mine was cited for a violation. In that audit, the investigator expressed concerns that employees did not have a readily available way to check what current paid sick time they had and how much was available for future use. The auditor also claimed that other basic tracking records were missing as well. All of this led to a rather unexpected violation citation when the remaining aspects of the audit proved rather uneventful. 

The moral of this story is that employers need to make sure that they have in place an effective recordkeeping and tracking system for overseeing your company’s compliance with the paid sick law because the NJDOL is actively monitoring compliance as part of its ever increasing audit activities. If you don’t, you can find yourself on the wrong side of failed audit findings that could have easily been avoided with greater attention to simple legal details.        

When Democrats took control of the White House in 2021, most experts expected that there would be a drastic change in the direction of the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), which had been up to that point a quite hospitable forum for employers during the prior administration. Since this change, as predicted, the NLRB has issued a series of decisions that are far more deferential in nature to employee interests, and in several cases, has in fact even reversed relatively recent NLRB precedent that set far more favorable legal rules and standards for employers. 

One case that was clearly in the cross hairs for possible reversal by the Board when the new administration took over in 2021 was the Boeing Co. case (2017). In Boeing Co., the Board adopted what it then believed was a more reasonable approach to evaluating whether facially neutral workplace rules violated federal labor law. The new Board was just waiting for a case to come before it that would provide a vehicle for overturning its Boeing Co. decision. In August 2023, the Board finally found that case, Stericycle, Inc. In this case, the Board seized upon the opportunity presented to drastically change the legal landscape for evaluating workplace rules and policies challenged as being violative of employee rights under federal law laws.

In Boeing Co., the NLRB previously held that it would no longer presume that workplace rules improperly interfered with employee rights simply because an employee could perceive that to be the possible case, and instead adopted a standard that would focus on the actual nature and extent of a rule’s impact on Section 7 rights, balancing that impact against the employer’s legitimate interests and justifications for the rule. Boeing created three categories of employer rules:

  • Rules that, when reasonably interpreted, do not interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), or the potential adverse impact on protected rights of which is outweighed by justifications associated with the rule;
  • Rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case as to whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate employer justifications; and
  • Rules that are always unlawful because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct where the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule.

The idea behind this more categorical approach was to give employers greater clarity in the kinds of rules that could be problematic for employers to implement in their workplace. Stericycle, Inc. has now reversed this standard, and in essence goes back to (and almost readopts) what for many years was the legally amorphous standard that Boeing Co. was designed to replace, a past standard that frequently premised findings of NLRA Section 7 violations upon the hypothetical possibility that a reasonable employee could conclude that their right to engage in protected activities was “chilled” by the rule.

Under the new standard announced by the NLRB, if a workplace rule is shown to have a “reasonable tendency” to chill employees from exercising Section 7 rights, it is presumptively illegal. This possible “tendency” is to be interpreted “from the perspective of an employee who is subject to the rule and economically dependent on the employer, and who also contemplates engaging in protected concerted activity.” According to the Board, the employer’s intent in creating the rule is “immaterial.” Now, what matters most is whether the employee could interpret the rule to have a coercive effect, even if the rule could also be reasonably interpreted as being non-coercive. Once that happens, the burden then falls on the employer to rebut this presumption of illegality by showing that the rule advances “a legitimate and substantial business interest” and that this interest could not be advanced by a more “narrowly tailored” rule, a far more dauting burden than what was placed upon employers by Boeing

Given this new standard, employers can expect that many sensible workplace rules that were adopted to create a harmonious workplace without any desire to curb employee rights will be closely scrutinized and potentially determined by the NLRB to violate employee rights under federal labor law. Therefore, more so than ever, employers are wise to conduct prompt legal reviews of their existing employee handbooks and other workplace policies to ensure that all employer rules and policies do not run afoul of this newly issued precedent from the NLRB.   

Over the last several weeks, as 2023 was drawing to a close, I received several questions about whether non-compete agreements are still enforceable in New Jersey. The confusion in this area is understandable. With efforts happening at the federal government level to ban non-compete agreements nationally, and initiatives working their way through the New Jersey legislature to radically modify the law on enforcement of such agreements here in New Jersey, no wonder employers are currently baffled about the present state of the law in this very important area.

As things currently stand, non-compete restrictions are still enforceable in New Jersey. None of the bills working their way through the New Jersey Legislature have succeeded yet and none are on the verge of being presented to the governor for enactment. So, at present, New Jersey law in this area remains as it has been for quite some time: that so long as non-compete agreements contain reasonable restrictions (in both time and geographical reach) and are narrowly tailored to serve legitimate business interests (such as protection of client relationships or proprietary information), they are still enforceable in New Jersey. 

On the federal level, the situation continues to evolve. The rule that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) proposed back in January 2023 that would ban almost all non-compete restrictions nationally is still not in effect. While the period for public comment on the proposed rule has long passed, the FTC has still not formally adopted the rule and it is unclear when such action will happen, though some media outlets have reported based on internal agency sources that this could occur in April 2024. Even if that actually occurs, one can expect there to be legal challenges filed by private parties so it is unclear whether such a rule will ever be allowed to be enforced by the courts. This dynamic is even more legally unsettling since this legal fight over enforcement of the rule will be happening during an election year.

Along with the FTC, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has also jumped into the fray in challenging the enforceability of non-compete restrictions. The General Counsel for the NLRB issued an enforcement guidance memo back in May 2023 that announced that, in theory, non-compete restrictions could under some circumstances infringe upon an employee’s right to engage in certain protected activities under federal labor law by restricting an employee’s access to future employment opportunities.  While noting that non-compete restrictions may be legitimate under certain limited circumstances, the memo does not provide any details on what those circumstances might be leaving employers with scant advice on what the General Counsel may view as legally viable restrictions. The good news for employers is that while the memo may reflect the views of the current General Counsel, it is not the law, meaning that it currently has no binding impact on enforceability of non-compete restrictions nationwide, though it could come into play for a litigant before the NLRB.

With 2024 around the corner, it should be an interesting year for non-compete legal developments. With this cascading environment of possible legal restrictions on enforcement, employers are wise to proceed cautiously in both how they draft non-compete agreements and in deciding from whom non-compete agreements are to be sought. Making sure that such agreements are narrowly tailored to serve legitimate business interests and that they are sought only from employees whose departure could indeed threaten the welfare of a business will go a long way in ensuring the enforceability of such arrangements.

May everyone have a happy and (legally) healthy 2024!           

Capehart Blogs

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Categories