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

FMLA

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.

On December 22, 2025, the New Jersey State Senate passed a pivotal bill that could drastically reshape employee leave rights and employer obligations in the state. It is essential for employers to start assessing the potential impact of this legislation, which now moves to the Assembly for review before it is presented to the governor for final signature.

Currently, New Jersey’s Family Leave Act (“NJFLA”) provides employees working at companies 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 must 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 proposed bill, however, significantly eases these requirements. If passed, employees would only need to have worked for their employer for 6 months and have logged 500 hours in the past year to qualify for leave and job protection. Furthermore, the bill reduces the threshold for employers, meaning businesses with as few as 15 employees (down from the current 30) would be subject to these provisions. Since employees of public entities are already eligible for NJFLA leave regardless of the size of their employer, the only change affecting public entities would be the shortened eligibility period, six months of employment and 500 hours worked in the past year.

It is important to note that the bill 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 businesses, this legislation represents a major shift. With fewer eligibility requirements, a wider range of employees would be able to take leave with guarantees of job protection.  This could result in increased administrative responsibilities for employers, who would need to ensure compliance with these new provisions.

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 would position it as a leader in this area. As the bill edges closer to final approval, it is essential for businesses to start preparing for its potential passage and assess how these changes may impact their policies.

Most employers today know what the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) requires, i.e., job-protected leave for employees working for employers with 50 or more employees. But most employers know very little about what the law prohibits, namely both interference with and protection against retaliation when an employee exercises FMLA rights. As part of my practice, I have had several clients recently pose a very interesting question about possible FMLA interference. This question is: when an employee is out on FMLA leave, can the employer require an employee to periodically check in to update the employer on their medical status, or does having that sort of interaction with the employee constitute wrongful FMLA interference? The answer to this question, like many in this area of the law, requires an employer to proceed with some caution, and it seems like a good time for a refresher on what is, and is not, permitted.

Legally, an employee on FMLA leave is neither entitled to be “left alone,” nor is completely relieved from responding to an employer’s discrete inquiries. Fielding occasional calls about one’s job while on leave is deemed a professional courtesy that does not abrogate or interfere with the exercise of an employee’s FMLA rights. When limited to the scope of passing on institutional knowledge to new staff, or providing closure on completed assignments, or even giving a quick update on the employee’s on-going medical status, employers do not violate the FMLA by making such calls or expecting employees to keep them updated on such topics. Moreover, if the employer has designated call in procedures or policies that an employee must follow while on FMLA, the employee is expected to follow them if they do not conflict with the leave rights granted under the FMLA. A big legal prohibition however is assigning any work to or expecting that the employee will perform any job services while on leave. That is a sure invitation for an interference claim.

While contacts with an employee are allowed while on FMLA, the real legal difficulty is that there is no legal standard or consensus on the amount of potential contacts an employer can have with an employee while out on FMLA leave. The cases talk about “de minimus” contacts not interfering with FMLA use without stating how many of those kinds of contacts can happen. So, what exactly is a sufficiently small enough number to not get the employer into trouble? Over 12 weeks of leave, once a month would seem fine, especially if the employer has a valid reason for the contact, such as a quick question about a work file or confirming an expected return to work date. More than that would likely depend on the presenting circumstances for the required contact. In this area, when all is said and done, seemingly less is better—the fewer times you need to speak to your employee, the better.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, employers who need to reach out to an employee on FMLA leave are best served by doing so only sparingly and only when the contact is supported by a legitimate business reason. And, most importantly, do not demand that an employee perform any sort of work during their FMLA time. Even when the employee volunteers to do so, it is best for the employer to say no to ensure that there is no chance of any misunderstanding by the employee that working on FMLA leave is an expectation of the employer. So now you know what FMLA interference is and how to best avoid it.

In my practice, I often get questions regarding the interplay between the leave rights available under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and the New Jersey Family Leave Law (“FLA”). The most frequent question I get is: how do you coordinate the two sets of leave in the case of childbirth and a mother’s child bonding leave. Unfortunately, most employers do this wrong, and it is important that employers understand how these separate leave laws interact so that your administration of such leaves is done in a legally correct way.

The chief difference between the FMLA and FLA is that the FMLA provides leave rights for an employee’s own serious health condition which is something that is not afforded by the FLA. This difference comes into play in childbirth/bonding leave situations.

When you combine the leave available to a new mother under both the FMLA and FLA the employee could technically be out for as long as 24 weeks. Likely because of the potential length of time that an employee can be out in these situations, employers often make the mistake of running FLA bonding leave immediately when the employee’s child is born. In such circumstances, it is often the case that the mother’s doctor will prescribe a period of recovery after childbirth for the mother. Depending upon the manner of the childbirth, the period prescribed often is different. For example, most doctors will prescribe a 6-week recovery period after a caesarian birth and 4 weeks for a regular delivery. When that occurs, significantly, the mother’s time out of work counts against that employee’s FMLA leave, not FLA leave. Why? Because there is a New Jersey FLA regulation that requires that child bonding leave cannot start until after the mother has exhausted any leave time she has under the FMLA. Most employers are not aware of this requirement, and it results in the employer’s mistaken administration of such coordinated leave periods. Many employers run the time concurrently, but this is not proper because the two leaves are not for the same qualifying reason.

Let’s consider an example that illustrates how this leave coordination is done correctly. It is not unusual that here in New Jersey an expectant mother will be taken out on a disability related leave 6 weeks before her expected delivery date. Then let’s suppose that mom delivers by way of a caesarian delivery and the doctor then prescribes 6 weeks of recovery. The temptation for many employers is to start the bonding time leave immediately upon birth, but with the mother in my example still having a doctor prescribed leave for her recovery from giving birth, those 6 weeks of leave must be exhausted before bonding leave can be run under the FLA; if of course, the new mother actually wants to take her bonding leave at that time. Another fun fact about the FLA: bonding leave can be taken anytime within 1 year of the actual birth, so employers cannot assume that bonding leave will be taken immediately after birth.

Therefore, be careful in how you as an employer run leave in these situations to ensure that you follow these unique coordination rules for leave for new parent employees. Before starting to run any leave in this situation, get information from your employee. Find out what the new parent’s intentions are about using her FLA bonding leave and determine how long of a recovery period her doctor has prescribed post-birth. With such information, you as an employer will be better equipped to meet your dual leave law responsibilities correctly

Editor: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

Below is an article written by my colleague, Ralph R. Smith, 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.

It seems like every day, I get some very unique questions in my practice. This one was a doozy. A client calls and tells me that an employee who is out of work on a medical leave of absence is posting pictures of herself on Facebook while on a wonderful vacation in the Bahamas. Needless to say, the client is irate and wants to take immediate disciplinary action against the employee, believing that the employee is not really sick and is engaged in some type of fraud under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). So, what can an employer do in such a circumstance?

Believe it or not, a lot.

Despite what some may think, being on FMLA leave does not shield an employee from possible disciplinary action, either for conduct that was committed before the leave or even during the leave. Employers can even fire an employee for misconduct when an employee is on an FMLA leave. The FMLA specifically states that if an employee would be subject to a possible job loss if they were physically present at work and not on a leave, the employee can lose their job even if they are taking FMLA. So, the statute itself provides an employer with some latitude in these types of situations. Obviously, any time such disciplinary action is taken there are risks, so the employer must make sure that it has solid documentation and proof to support its discipline in case the employee brings suit and claims either retaliation or interference with the ability to take FMLA leave. These are both possible claims that could be brought in such circumstances, so employers must proceed with some caution in navigating these types of factual scenarios.

In my client’s situation, the employer has every right to concern itself with possible FMLA fraud. It is real and happens much more frequently than you would think. There are a number of reported cases where courts have given employers the ability to address such situations, going as far as allowing terminations in the very scenario on which my client sought legal advice. In one such case, an employee who was on an FMLA leave for a mental condition was discovered on a vacation in Florida. The employer learned about it when the employee posted pictures of himself on the internet. After the employee was fired for FMLA fraud, he brought suit claiming retaliation and interference with his FMLA rights. In defense of his actions, the employee claimed that his doctor directed that he needed to relax more to deal with his stress condition, and that was why he took a vacation in Florida. The court rejected the claim, declaring that the point of FMLA leave is to allow an employee to recuperate from a serious medical condition and did not give an employee license to take an unauthorized surreptitious vacation from work. Thus, the employee’s termination while on FMLA leave was declared a valid disciplinary action by the employer.

Therefore, employers you do have tools available to you when you sense possible FMLA fraud. Proceed with caution, but don’t let those possible risks prevent you from imposing discipline against employees who are truly attempting to abuse the FMLA and harm your workplace.

Since the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) was passed back in 1993, employers have frequently worried about one overarching issue: FMLA abuse and fraud.  Just recently I had a client ask: what can an employer do when it suspects that an employee is lying about the need for FMLA leave? I tell employers to fear not, and not fret, because there are in fact legal tools available to them to weed out FMLA fraud.

Under the FMLA, before an employee can get FMLA leave, the employee must obtain supporting medical information from a health care provider to justify the need for leave.  Typically, employers receive a signed medical health certification form from the health care provider, which is a form prescribed for such use by the US Department of Labor. This is the first place to look to detect fraud. Closely scrutinize the form to determine whether the health care provider actually provides support for the medical diagnosis for which the employee is seeking leave. Where there are discrepancies between what the health care provider indicates and what you are being told by the employee, the employer should follow what the health care provider notes in the form rather than what the employee is telling you. This way, the employer can weed out any misinformation being provided by the employee to justify a leave.

The second-place on the form that should be evaluated is the nature of the leave that the health care provider is prescribing for the employee. Look to see exactly how much time the health care provider believes the employee needs to be out of work, and when, especially if intermittent leave is sought by an employee. For example, where the employer finds that the employee is spending more time out of work on intermittent leave than what the health care provider has indicated is necessary on the form, this is a telltale sign of possible abuse. So, what can the employer do in such circumstance? For one thing, the employer can ask for a recertification form from that physician/health care provider if the pattern of use is different from what was previously prescribed. FMLA regulations provide this tool to the employer to control possible abuse by alerting the health care provider that the employee is using the leave in a way which is different than what was originally recommended and prescribed.

Another tool available in a suspected fraud situation is requesting a second opinion so that another health care provider paid by the employer can evaluate whether there is in fact the need at all for the FMLA leave. Where the second opinion differs from the original health care provider’s certification supporting the leave request, the FMLA statute and regulations provide for the obtaining of a third opinion, which is binding on both the employer and employee, and this becomes the final determination on whether leave is authorized. The final health care provider is chosen collectively by both the employee and employer. Clients of mine have used this method to stop potential FMLA fraud/abuse in its tracks where the employer reasonably suspected due to the circumstances presented that the requested leave was not needed by the employee.

Aside from the foregoing mechanisms, employee fraud has also actually been discovered through searches of the Internet and publicly available social media sites of the employee. Where an employer suspects fraud, taking a look on the Internet and conducting searches on the employee, especially on the publically accessible portions of social media site areas such as Facebook, can provide important information corroborating suspicions of fraud. In one reported case, an employee’s FMLA fraud was discovered from pictures posted by the employee on the Internet from a tropical island where the employee was vacationing at a time when he was out on FMLA leave. The employee tried to justify the vacation by arguing that his health care provider prescribed it to deal with the stress condition that prompted the request for FMLA leave, but the court did not buy that argument.

Sometimes, information about FMLA fraud will likewise come from co-employees who will report a violation because they too are upset that the employee is not at work. Similarly, I have had cases where an employee’s own relative reported the fraud in requesting FMLA to the employer so corrective action could be taken. In other extreme situations, private investigators can be used to monitor the daily activities of the employee to see whether the leave is truly needed.

The FMLA is very clear on this issue: fraud is not something that an employer must accept, and utilizing the tools available under the act will enable the employer to ferret out illegitimate requests for leave. Where fraud is discovered, employers have every right to take disciplinary action against the employee, including termination, as the employer did in the case involving the illicit vacation scenario mentioned above. So, if you are facing a situation where fraud is suspected, conduct an investigation, which sometimes will require that the employer directly confront the employee with the allegations. Employers will be amazed at how well you can guard against and remedy FMLA fraud by using the very mechanisms made available under the law and its accompanying regulations for combating such illegitimate practices.

 


Ralph R. Smith, 3rd is Co-Chair of the Employment and Labor Practice Group. He practices in employment litigation and preventative employment practices, including counseling employers on the creation of employment policies, non-compete and trade secret agreements, and training employers to avoid employment-related litigation. He represents both companies and individuals in related complex commercial litigation before federal states courts and administrative agencies in labor and employment cases including race, gender, age, national origin, disability and workplace harassment and discrimination matters, wage-and-hour disputes, restrictive covenants, grievances, arbitration, drug testing, and employment related contract issues.

Employers are somewhat behind the eight ball in the FMLA because the employee need not specifically invoke the “FMLA” in order to obtain protection under the law. Nor does the employee have to give detailed information about health; rather, the employer has to consider whether the FMLA applies based on what the employee says is the reason for absence. What if the employee only says “I’m out today because I am sick?” If that happens, the lesson in Collins v. NTN-Bower Corporation, 272 F.3d 1006 (7 th Cir. 2001) is that this is not enough to trigger FMLA protection. (more…)

Capehart Blogs

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Categories