Management training Archives - Blank Rome Workplace

Blank Rome Labor & Employment Alert: New Jersey Employers Must Use New Portal to Report Separations

Daniel J. Sobol, Julia C. Riskowitz, and Sarah M. Kirkpatrick ●

New Jersey employers are now required to report all employee separations through the new “Employer Response Portal” recently launched by the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”). This new requirement applies to every type of separation—resignations, terminations, retirements, and layoffs—regardless of whether the departing employee files for unemployment benefits. This new requirement is separate from, and in addition to, the existing requirement that employers provide departing employees with Form BC-10.

Background

On November 3, 2022, Governor Phil Murphy signed P.L. 2022, c. 120, which amended New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law to impose new separation reporting requirements on employers. Under the amended law, employers must “immediately and simultaneously” report each separation electronically, providing the date of separation and other information the NJDOL uses to determine benefits eligibility. Although the law took effect on July 31, 2023, the NJDOL delayed enforcement until it could build a dedicated online reporting system.

With that new system completed, the NJDOL has launched the Employer Response Portal, an online platform designed to streamline the reporting process. Employers are now required to use the portal to report separations within seven days of an employee’s separation date.

To read the full alert, please visit our website.

From Fixable to Fineable: ICE’s Overhaul of I-9 Violation Classifications

Mark Blondman and Gabrielle I. Weiss ●

For nearly 30 years, employers completing Form I-9s operated under a forgiving framework: make a minor administrative mistake, like a missing date, an omitted title, and you had 10 days to fix it without penalty. That safety net just got a lot smaller. Without a formal announcement or rulemaking process, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) recently posted updated guidance that reclassifies many common administrative errors as “substantive” violations subject to immediate fines. The practical effect is significant: errors that used to be correctable now carry per-violation penalties ranging from $288 to $2,861, and they add up fast.

Here’s what changed, why it matters, and what employers should be doing about it.

Same ABCs, New Rules: New Jersey Finalizes Updated Regulatory Framework for Worker Classification

Gabrielle I. Weiss ●

On May 5, 2026, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“NJDOL”) filed its final rule adopting N.J.A.C. 12:11, which provides regulatory guidance on how the state’s longstanding “ABC” test is applied to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The final rule, which carries an operative date of October 1, 2026, arrives after a contentious rulemaking process that drew sharp criticism from financial services and insurance to construction and app-based transportation. While the ABC test itself is nothing new in New Jersey—it has been the statutory standard for nearly 90 years—these rules represent the first comprehensive regulatory framework explaining how the NJDOL interprets and applies the test. Critically, the ABC test in New Jersey governs not just unemployment insurance but also the state’s Wage and Hour Law, Wage Payment Law, Earned Sick Leave Law, and Temporary Disability Benefits Law, giving these rules a practical reach far broader than similar regulations in most other states. Employers operating in the state should begin evaluating their independent contractor relationships now to prepare for implementation.

California’s AB 692 Reins in “Stay or Pay” Provisions in California Employment Agreements

Taylor C. Morosco ●

California’s Assembly Bill (“AB”) 692 took effect on January 1, 2026, significantly limiting the use of commonplace “stay-or-pay” clauses in offer letters and agreements, which require employees or prospective employees to repay certain costs if their employment ends.

AB 692 underscores California’s commitment to limit the use of contractual provisions restricting or disincentivizing workforce mobility. Although the new law does not apply retroactively (essentially grandfathering in “stay-or-pay” clauses entered into before January 1, 2026), employers must audit agreements and practices, and plan for compliance to avoid significant potential liability going forward.

New Jersey Steps Into Fray, Bans Mandatory Employee Meetings

David G. Rodriguez and Derek E. Schultz ●

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law significant amendments to the New Jersey Employer Political Communication Restrictions Act (the “Act”) on September 3, 2025. These amendments, which take effect on December 2, 2025, make New Jersey one of 12 states in the nation to prohibit employers from holding captive audience meetings to discuss unionization with employees.

KEY PROVISIONS

The Act Will Prohibit Employers from Holding Mandatory Meetings on Unionization

Employers and their agents will be prohibited from requiring employees to attend meetings or participate in communications where the purpose is to convey the employer’s opinion about unionization. This restriction will apply to all employers in New Jersey, including those in both the private and public sectors.

Ding! Dong! U.S. DOL Assessment of Liquidated Damages Is Dead!

Jason E. Reisman ●

The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (“FAB”) on June 27, 2025, putting to bed, hopefully once and for all, the DOL’s unauthorized practice of requiring employers to pay liquidated damages in pre-litigation wage and hour matters. For years, during administrative investigations, the DOL would seek to impose, and/or threaten litigation over the imposition of, liquidated damages when it found violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Not anymore.

Court Temporarily Hits the Brakes on EO 14173 Ending Illegal Discrimination: What Employers Should Know

Anthony B. Haller, Brooke T. Iley, and Theresa A. Topping ●

Big Picture

On February 21, 2025, a federal judge in the District Court of Maryland granted a temporary injunction blocking portions of President Trump’s Executive Orders “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity” (“14173”) and “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs” (“14151”) (collectively the “EOs”). To learn more about each EO’s directives read Blank Rome’s previous coverage on 14173 here and 14151 here. This is a temporary nationwide ban on certain portions of the EOs.

After pointing out that the Trump Administration has declared “DEI to be henceforth illegal”, the Court found the EOs do not “define any of the operative terms” such as “illegal DEI”, “equity-related”, “promoting DEI”, or “illegal discrimination or preferences”. This vagueness fails to provide companies and organizations with proper notice as to what types of programs are prohibited. Further, the Court found that the EOs likely violate the First Amendment by expressly threatening “the expression of views supportive of equity, diversity and inclusion.” This is a nationwide ban.

Employers Are Extra Grateful This Thanksgiving After Federal Court Sets Aside DOL’s Salary Threshold Increase

Theresa A. Topping ●

Salary threshold. . .$35,568.00. . .the Eastern District of Texas. . .not the classic answers you expect to hear from your loved ones around the Thanksgiving table when you ask, “Hey guys, what are you most thankful for?” While family, friends, food, and a roof over your head are all great, the fact that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas shot down the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) attempt at increasing the overtime salary threshold to $58,656.00 is right up there for employers.

The DOL’s Not-So-Final “Final Rule”

Back on April 23, 2024, the DOL announced their “final rule,” which entailed a multi-phase increase of the “white-collar exemption” (the executive, administrative, and professional employees (“EAP”)) salary threshold from $35,568.00 to $43,888.00, starting on July 1, 2024, and then up to $58,656.00, starting on January 1, 2025 (with increases automatically occurring every three years thereafter). Notably absent were any changes to the DOL’s “duties” test, which must be analyzed in conjunction with a salary when determining whether an EAP employee is exempt from overtime. At the time of its announcement, the DOL projected their final rule would make four million workers newly eligible for overtime payments and cost employers nationwide roughly $1.4 billion in the first year alone. Being thankful for a $35,568.00 threshold is looking more and more understandable now, isn’t it?

NLRB Overturns Two Decades-Old Precedents Relating to What Employers Can Say to Employees Regarding Views on Unions

Anthony B. Haller and Gabrielle I. Weiss ●

With a new administration looming, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) recently issued two decisions that radically depart from established law about what an employer can say and how an employer can lawfully meet with its employees during a union organizing campaign.

Employers have always been able to tell employees that one of the disadvantages of unions is that they impede direct dealing between the company and its employees. This is because employees give up their individual rights in favor of exclusive collective representation by the union, and it puts a third party in the middle of the employment relationship. Despite this being an obvious truism, depending on what is said by the company, this may now be illegal under the Board’s decision in Siren Retail Corp. dba Starbucks and Workers United affiliated with Service Employees International Union (“Starbucks”).

Employers have always been able to have a mandatory meeting—the so-called “captive audience meeting”—of all employees in the bargaining unit at least 24 hours before a union representation election to make its case for why it believes that a union is unnecessary for the employees. These meetings have been among the top tools employers use to fend off union organizing campaigns. This type of mandatory meeting is now illegal under the Board’s decision in Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Labor Union (“Amazon”).

Time will tell if these decisions hold up under the new administration; but, for now, they are the law.

California’s New Workplace Violence Prevention Law: July 1, 2024, Compliance Deadline—Are You Ready?

Caroline Powell Donelan ●

The effective date of California’s Senate Bill 553 is fast approaching, and the law covers nearly every employer and every employment facility in California with the exception of healthcare facilities and other facilities governed by different legal standards, most remote workers, and businesses with fewer than 10 employees.

Whether you are based in California or operate a worksite in the state with more than 10 employees, compliance is mandatory. The requirements, set forth in SB 553, are detailed and complex, establishing rules for planning, logging, and record-keeping, as well as worker training, which will all be overseen and enforced by the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (“Cal/OSHA”).

Specifically, California employers must meet four broad categories of obligations that go into effect July 1, 2024, including:

The creation of a workplace violence prevention plan.
The creation of a workplace violence incident log.
Training requirements.
Recordkeeping requirements.

Background

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: