Skip to main content

New Laws for 2014: Ban the Box (New Jersey)


Each state has a host of new employment and labor related laws that take effect in 2014. This series focuses on several new laws from around the country that are of particular interest.  In this instance, this note focuses on a new regulation that affects many San Francisco based employers.


After several other states and cities have passed "Ban the Box" measures recently, New Jersey has followed suit and passed a law of their own that applies to all employers, both public and private, that employ 15 or more employees over 20 calendar weeks.  The Opportunity to Compete Act of 2014 (the official name of New Jersey's Ban the Box legislation) prohibits covered employers from inquiring about an applicant's criminal record until a few steps have been completed:  1) an interview has been conducted; 2) a determination has been made that the applicant is qualified for the position; and 3) the employer has selected the applicant as its first choice to fill the position.

With that being said, even after the initial employment application process is complete, employers are still prohibited from inquiring into expunged criminal records, arrests that did not end in conviction, disorderly conduct convictions in which the date of sentence or release from jail occurred five or more years earlier, and conviction of crimes of the fourth degree in which the date of sentence or the release from jail occurred 10 or more years earlier.  Exceptions to this law are in place, however, for certain positions including law enforcement, corrects, the judiciary, homeland security, or emergency management.

Unlike D.C.'s Ban the Box legislation which requires approval by D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray and by Congress before it becomes law, New Jersey's Ban the Box legislation will become effective March 1, 2015.


Additional information on the topic can be found here:  http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A2000/1999_I1.HTM

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations