New Jersey
New Jersey: Court Interprets State ESLL for the First Time
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in NJ |
EFFECTIVE JAN 28, 2026 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
In Cano v. County Concrete Corporation, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued the first published appellate interpretation of the state’s Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL), which significantly expands potential exposure for employer noncompliance.
In this case, the court found that a concrete supplier’s vacation and PTO policies failed to meet the ESLL’s requirements, holding that paid leave programs must allow employees to take leave for all purposes specified in the statute, not merely vacation, holidays, or bereavement. The court also confirmed that requiring a doctor’s note for absences of fewer than three consecutive days violates the ESLL, underscoring that employers may not impose additional conditions on the use of protected leave.
The ruling further clarifies that the ESLL’s “construction industry” exemption is narrowly construed. Although County Concrete argued that it was exempt as a construction‑industry employer, the court rejected this claim, concluding that producing and delivering sand, gravel, and ready‑mix concrete constituted manufacturing, not construction of “houses, schools, or other structures.” The decision makes clear that employers relying on exemptions must evaluate their core business activities, rather than their proximity to the construction industry or the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.
The court also highlighted the consequences of failing to meet the ESLL’s notice and recordkeeping requirements. Here, the employer posted notices only at one location and in an inaccessible area, and it did not maintain records showing employees’ accrued and used sick leave. Because the ESLL presumes that an employer failed to provide required sick leave when adequate records are not maintained, the court found that these deficiencies independently supported a finding of liability and contributed to substantial damages.
For employers, this decision emphasizes that courts will enforce the ESLL strictly, closely scrutinize any claimed exemptions, and hold employers to the statute’s detailed accrual, use, notice, and recordkeeping rules.
Action Items
- Review PTO policies, postings, and documentation practices for compliance with ESLL requirements.
- Consult with legal counsel on potential exemptions from ESLL requirements.
New Jersey: Title IX Preempts Grievance and Arbitration Procedures in CBA
On January 29, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court held, in Rutgers v. AFSCME Local 888, that Title IX preempts grievance and arbitration procedures in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) where those procedures do not provide equal rights to both the complainant and the respondent in a Title IX matter. The court overturned an order requiring Rutgers to arbitrate the termination of an employee found responsible for Title IX violations, concluding that the CBA’s arbitration process conflicted with federal regulations requiring equal procedural protections for both parties because it was only available to the disciplined employee and the union. Although the case arose in the public‑sector context, the court emphasized that similar federal preemption concerns could apply to private universities governed by the NLRA.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase