At least once a month I receive a postcard in the mail from a local, regional or national realtor about homes sold recently in my neighborhood. These glossy postcards typically feature a specific real estate agent with his or her photo, name and telephone number. What these postcards don’t tell you, however, is whether the agent is subject to a non-compete agreement. Because I’m always looking for interesting topics to discuss related to restrictive covenants, this seventeenth article in The Restricting Covenant series explores realtors, real estate agents and non-compete disputes.
New Jersey’s comprehensive new equal pay law, the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act (the “Act”), took effect last month. The law amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) by making it a prohibited employment practice for an employer to compensate an employee who is a member of a “protected class” less than the amount paid to employees who are not members of that protected class for “substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility.” Employers can prove a compensation differential is lawful by showing it is due to a seniority system, merit system, or by satisfying several factors including that the differential is based on legitimate, bona fide factors other than the employee’s membership in a protected class, and that the factors supporting the differential are job-related and based on a legitimate business necessity. The Act extends the NJLAD’s two-year statute of limitations to a six-year statute of limitations for wage discrimination claims.
Make no bones about it, non-compete disputes can be litigious, contentious, and downright nasty. Someone breached another’s trust or loyalty; or stole something valuable from someone else; or didn’t uphold his or her end of the bargain. Battle lines are drawn. Nevertheless, there are codes of civility, professionalism, and rules of law that must be followed. So, you would think that when a court enters an order granting injunctive relief consistent with the parties’ non-compete agreement, the order would be followed, right? Read on. In this sixteenth article of the Series, I discuss a few extreme examples of litigants in non-compete disputes who failed to comply with court orders, resulting in significant monetary damages and other sanctions.
Massachusetts recently joined a growing list of states amending their equal pay legislation. On July 1, 2018, the Act to Establish Pay Equity, originally passed in 2016, took effect, amending Massachusetts’ existing Equal Pay Act.
The law bans pay differentials on the basis of sex where two people perform comparable work, adopting the more liberal “equal pay for comparable work” standard, as opposed to the federal law’s “equal pay for equal work” standard. Comparable work is defined as work that requires substantially similar skill, effort, and responsibility that is performed under similar working conditions. Like other equal pay laws, employers can plead certain affirmative defenses in response to an employee’s claim of pay discrimination, if the employer can show the pay differential is due to:
In May 2018, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy made good on a campaign promise when he signed into law the New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Act (the “Act”). New Jersey is one of ten states that require employers to provide paid sick leave, joining Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Before the state passed the Act, more than a dozen New Jersey municipalities had enacted their own paid sick leave laws, creating confusion for employers conducting business throughout New Jersey. The Act now preempts these local laws and bars municipalities from passing their own paid sick leave laws. The preemption aspect of the Act is welcome news for employers because they will only have to comply with the Act, rather than a patchwork of local laws. Here are some important components of the Act that employers should be aware of before its effective date on October 29.
Westchester County’s salary history ban, signed on Equal Pay Day in April 2018, took effect on July 9, 2018. The law amends the Westchester County Human Rights Law, and makes it unlawful for an employer, including labor organizations and employment agencies or “agents” thereof, to:
- rely on the wage history of a prospective employee from any current or former employer in determining wages; and
- request or require as a condition of being interviewed, as a condition of being considered for an offer of employment, or as a condition of employment, that a prospective employee disclose wage history information.