For New Jersey employers, whether your employment non-compete and non-solicitation agreements are enforceable depends on how well your covenants hold up under judicial scrutiny.

The Legal Framework

For New Jersey employers, restrictive covenants are not mere boilerplate; they are litigation instruments that require careful, strategic drafting and thoughtful deployment. The state relies on the Solari/Whitmyer framework to determine enforceability. An employee non-compete or non-solicitation covenant is enforceable only if it meets three requirements:

  • It protects a legitimate employer interest;
  • It imposes no undue hardship on the employee; and
  • It does not injure the public interest.

Courts will enforce narrowly tailored restraints but not rescue provisions designed purely to suppress ordinary competition.

Key Considerations

1. Does the covenant protect a legitimate business interest?Trade secrets and confidential information remain core protectable interests. Customer relationships can justify a restraint, especially where the employee developed those relationships through the employer’s investment of time, effort, training, and goodwill. The Appellate Division has credited evidence that high-performing sales employees received specialized training, access to proprietary tools, and exposure to customer and prospect information, making the employer’s customer relationships protectable. The caution from Whitmyer continues to be important, however: General industry knowledge, ordinary skills, and public bidding information are not enough.

2. Is the restraint no broader than necessary?
Duration, geography, and scope of activity still matter. A one-year restriction is often defensible, but the analysis is fact-sensitive and tied to the employer’s actual need. A court could blue-pencil overbroad non-solicitation language that barred solicitation of all actual and prospective clients, limiting it to clients or prospects the employee knew or worked with during employment. Although geographic limits are useful, remote and hybrid work make old territory-based language less reliable because the covenant must track the employee’s real competitive footprint, not just an office location.

3. Does enforcement harm the public interest?
Courts look for a real public component, not abstract complaints about competition. Restrictions in commercial contexts are more likely to be enforceable where customers have alternatives and the restraint is limited. Avoid restraints affecting patient choice, access to professional services, employee mobility in essential markets, or clauses that operate as blanket bans untethered to confidential information or customer goodwill.

Audit Your Existing Covenants

  • What specific trade secret, confidential information, customer relationship, or specialized training investment does the covenant protect?
  • Does the clause cover only customers or prospects the employee knew, serviced, or learned about through employment?
  • Is the duration, geography, and activity restriction tailored to the employee’s role and real competitive reach?
  • Would a narrower non-solicitation, confidentiality agreement or trade-secret protection accomplish the same business objective with less litigation risk?

The Bottom Line

New Jersey employers that rely on overly broad or boilerplate language may find their covenants unenforceable, or modified, when it matters most. A proactive audit of existing agreements can identify vulnerabilities before they become litigation problems.

If you have questions about the enforceability of your restrictive covenants or need assistance reviewing or drafting your employment agreements, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.

New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) is generally considered to be one of the broadest whistleblower statutes in the country, enacted to “protect and encourage employees to report illegal or unethical workplace activities.” Due to CEPA’s broad nature, employers often struggle to identify strategies to dispose of CEPA claims short of settlement or trial. One tool available to employers in defending CEPA claims is CEPA’s identification requirement. A plaintiff must do more than simply voice displeasure with an employer’s operations to succeed on a CEPA claim. Instead, “a plaintiff must identify a statute, regulation, rule, or public policy that closely relates to the complained-of conduct.”

The Appellate Division’s February 18, 2026 decision in Sloan v. Cape Regional Medical Center, Inc., while unpublished and therefore only for instructive purpose, illustrates how that identification requirement operates in practice and what happens when a plaintiff fails to satisfy it. The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment on some of the plaintiff’s CEPA claims while reversing on others, demonstrating just what the identification requirement entails and providing a roadmap for how employers can challenge it.

Sloan’s Lawsuit and The Appellate Division’s Holdings

John Sloan is the former director of plant operations for Cape Regional Medical Center. During his employment, Sloan raised internal complaints regarding fire-safety, operating room temperature and humidity levels, and electrical code violations in the hospital’s sewage ejector pit. In his lawsuit, Sloan alleged he was terminated in retaliation for his complaints. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants because Sloan could not sufficiently identify the sources of law and public policy on which his claims were based.

On appeal, Sloan only addressed complaints regarding National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) regulations, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) regulations, the National Electric Code (“NEC”), and Section 1135 of the Social Security Act. How the Appellate Division dealt with each is instructive on the identification requirement.

The Appellate Division reversed summary judgment on Sloan’s complaints about electrical work in the hospital sewage ejector pit in violation of the NED. Sloan emailed hospital leadership stating the electrical work was “not code compliant” and attached a photograph annotated with specific references to relevant NEC sections. Sloan’s counsel identified the sections in Sloan’s opposition to summary judgment and the Appellate Division found the citations were “sufficient to meet the identification requirement.” This is perhaps the clearest example of identification as Sloan identified certain NEC codes at the time of his complaint and his counsel was able to rely on that during motion practice.

Likewise, the Appellate Division reversed summary judgment on Sloan’s complaints based on CMS regulations. Sloan’s counsel was able to identify an on-point federal regulation and quoted CMS interpretive guidelines outlining hospital requirements. The regulations related to humidity levels and Sloan testified that he observed, and reported, humidity levels outside the required range. Because Sloan reported violations regarding humidity levels and there were in fact regulations regarding operating room humidity levels, the Appellate Division concluded Sloan met the identification requirement.

Conversely, the Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment on Sloan’s fire-safety complaints because he failed to identify any specific NFPA code provision. Sloan raised concerns about uninspected fire extinguishers, emergency lighting, exit signs, and failing sprinklers, but at deposition offered only a general reference to “code” without citing any section. The court found these “vague references” were “insufficient to satisfy the identification requirement.” The Appellate Division noted that the NFPA  has “roughly 300 codes and standards” and the trial court was “not obligated to search through those codes for the relevant regulation when plaintiff’s counsel has failed to provide it.” The Appellate Division emphasized that the identification requirement “does not require the plaintiff to be personally aware of specific sections of the laws or regulations at the time he blows the whistle . . . But it does require plaintiff’s counsel to assist the court in resolving the threshold question of law regarding the existence of a law, regulation, or public policy.” If even counsel cannot identify the specific legal authority, dismissal may be warranted.

Finally, the Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment on Sloan’s claim based on Section 1135 of the Social Security Act, but for a fundamentally different reason than the NFPA claims. Although Sloan specifically identified Section 1135, the Appellate Division held “it is not a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law that may be violated.” Rather, it “simply grants the Secretary discretion to relieve hospitals from the duty to comply with other regulations.” Therefore, Section 1135 could not serve as the basis of a CEPA claim. This references an important departure from normal identification issues: even a precisely cited legal authority will not satisfy CEPA’s identification requirement unless the provision imposes an affirmative obligation capable of being violated.

Practical Takeaways For Employers

The Sloan decision offers several practical takeaways for New Jersey employers and HR professionals, both during and before litigation.

  • Distinguish between general complaints and regulatory objections: Generalized disagreements with the company likely cannot meet the identification requirement of a CEPA claim whereas complaints about violations of legal authorities like regulations may stand on firmer ground.  While the employee in Sloan could not identify the specific regulation at the time of his complaint or in deposition, he did identify the substance of the regulations at issue and his attorney included the specific regulation citations in his brief opposing summary judgment.
  • Discern the type of authority that is the basis of the complaint: Even if the employee references a legal authority, if it is not of the type that can be violated, like Section 1135 of the Social Security Act, it arguably cannot form the basis for a valid CEPA claim.
  • Test the specific legal authority in discovery: Even though an employee does not need to identify a specific legal authority at the time of making a complaint, the burden changes once a lawsuit is filed. If a plaintiff can only cite vague categories of authority without specifying a specific legal provision that was violated, the claim might be challengeable.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with claims under CEPA and for counseling to help prevent actions before they start.

In January 2025, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) issued guidance explaining the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) applies equally to decisions made with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI). Employers cannot avoid liability because an algorithm, not a person, made or influenced an employment decision is the message.

What Is Algorithmic Discrimination?

Algorithmic discrimination occurs when an automated decision-making tool results in discrimination based on a protected characteristic, such as race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin, or another classification protected under the LAD. According to the DCR, these tools include technologies that use AI, machine learning, or predictive analytics to assist with employment decisions.

Bias can arise for several reasons, including flawed system design, biased training data, or the manner in which the technology is implemented. As a result, even facially neutral AI tools may unintentionally disadvantage certain groups.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

The DCR emphasizes that employers remain responsible for employment decisions made with the assistance of AI. If an automated tool causes disparate treatment, creates an unlawful disparate impact, or interferes with an employee’s right to a reasonable accommodation, an employer may face liability under the LAD. Importantly, using a third-party vendor does not necessarily shield an employer from responsibility.

A Growing Regional Trend

New Jersey is not alone in scrutinizing the use of AI in employment decisions. New York City has implemented one of the nation’s most comprehensive AI hiring laws, requiring employers using certain automated employment decision tools to conduct independent annual bias audits, publish audit summaries, and provide advance notice to applicants and employees before using those tools. 

Connecticut is also moving toward increased regulation of high-risk AI systems, including those used in employment. Signed into law, Senate Bill No. 5  regulates the use of automated employment-related decision technologies by requiring employers to notify applicants and employees when AI materially influences employment decisions and to disclose the categories and sources of personal data used by those systems. It also expressly prohibits the discriminatory use of AI in employment decisions, reinforcing that employers are accountable for ensuring automated tools comply with existing anti-discrimination laws.

Together with New York City’s bias-audit requirements and New Jersey’s DCR guidance, Connecticut’s law reflects a broader trend toward increased transparency, accountability, and oversight of AI in the workplace. 

These jurisdictions join a growing number of states, including Illinois, Colorado, and California, that have enacted or are actively pursuing legislation governing the use of AI in employment decisions.

Employers Reducing Risk

As employers continue integrating AI into workplace decision-making, they should take proactive steps to ensure these technologies are used responsibly. Some considerations include:

  • Understanding how AI tools make recommendations;
  • Working with vendors that regularly test for bias;
  • Periodically auditing AI-generated outcomes for potential disparities;
  • Maintaining human oversight over significant employment decisions; and
  • Ensuring employees and applicants can request reasonable accommodations when automated systems are involved.

Key Takeaway

AI can be a valuable tool for employers, but it is not a substitute for compliance with anti-discrimination laws. The same legal standards under the LAD apply whether an employment decision is made by a supervisor or assisted by AI. Employers should regularly evaluate their use of automated decision-making tools to help minimize legal risk while taking advantage of evolving technology.

For additional discussion, please see the Workplace Privacy, Data Management & Security Report.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with questions regarding AI governance, privacy, and cybersecurity in the workplace.

Employers frequently retain outside counsel to investigate workplace complaints involving harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or other sensitive employment issues. A common question that follows is whether the attorney’s notes, communications, draft reports, and other investigative materials must later be produced if litigation ensues.

In C.S. v. Brick Recycling Company, Docket No. A-0628-25, approved for publication on June 1, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division provided significant guidance on that issue. Although the court reaffirmed the principles established nearly three decades ago in Payton v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, it clarified how trial courts must analyze privilege claims and the scope of any waiver when an employer relies on an attorney-led investigation as part of its defense.

Background

The case arose from a workplace sexual harassment claim brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50. After the employee, identified in the opinion only by his initials to protect his privacy, complained internally, the employer retained outside counsel to investigate the allegations. Although the employer produced the attorney’s final investigative report during discovery, it withheld thirty-six pages of documents including attorney notes, communications, draft reports, and other investigative documents on the grounds that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. The trial court ordered production of all withheld materials, concluding they were not privileged under Payton.

Defendants sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s ruling, which the Appellate Division granted.

The Court Rejected an “All-or-Nothing” Approach

The Appellate Division vacated the trial court’s order and held that Payton does not require wholesale disclosure of every document associated with an attorney-led investigation simply because the employer relies on the investigation in defending the case. Instead, trial courts must conduct a careful document-by-document and, when necessary, page-by-page and line-by-line in camera review to determine:

  • whether the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine applies;
  •  whether the employer has waived those protections by asserting the investigation as part of an affirmative defense; and
  • if waiver exists, whether particular documents or portions of documents remain protected because they are only “tenuously related” to the asserted defense.

Clarifying “Tenuously Related”

One of the opinion’s most important contributions is its guidance on how trial courts should apply Payton’s undefined “tenuously related” standard, since neither the Supreme Court nor any prior published opinion had defined that phrase. The Appellate Division suggested that a document is sufficiently related to the defense if it could:

  • support the employer’s position by demonstrating the thoroughness or reasonableness of the investigation; or
  • undermine that defense by, for example, suggesting the employer improperly influenced, limited, or compromised the investigation.

Conversely, documents—or portions of documents—that bear little or no relationship to the affirmative defense may remain protected despite any waiver.

Timing of an Investigation Is Not Dispositive

The Appellate Division also corrected the trial court’s apparent assumption that attorney-client privilege or work-product protection could not apply simply because the investigation began before the lawsuit was filed. The court cautioned, however, that timing can still be a relevant, though not dispositive, factor.

Instead, the key inquiry is whether litigation was reasonably anticipated and whether the attorney was acting, at least in part, to provide legal advice or to prepare for anticipated litigation. The court recognized that attorneys conducting workplace investigations frequently serve a dual role, investigating facts while also providing legal counsel.

Draft Reports May Receive Greater Protection

Another noteworthy aspect of the opinion is the court’s discussion of draft investigative reports. Although the Appellate Division reached no definitive holding on the issue, it questioned whether the attorney’s draft report should be disclosed to opposing counsel at all, analogizing it to draft expert reports, which court rules generally shield from discovery (absent a showing of substantial need and undue hardship) because they may reveal an attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. The court directed the trial court to reconsider whether the draft report should be produced.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

The decision provides several practical lessons for employers and counsel conducting workplace investigations:

  • Attorney-led investigations continue to receive meaningful privilege protections, even when litigation has not yet commenced.
  • Invoking an investigation as part of an affirmative defense may result in a waiver of privilege, but that waiver is not automatically unlimited.
  •  Courts must analyze privilege on a document-by-document and often line-by-line basis, with redactions where appropriate.
  • Draft reports, attorney notes, legal advice, and attorney mental impressions may remain protected if they are not sufficiently related to the employer’s asserted defense.
  • Detailed privilege logs and clearly defined engagement letters remain critical in preserving privilege claims and assisting courts in conducting the required in camera review.

Looking Ahead

C.S. v. Brick Recycling Company provides important clarification for employers that rely on outside counsel to investigate workplace complaints. While the decision confirms that asserting an attorney-led investigation as part of an affirmative defense may result in a limited waiver of privilege, it also reinforces that the waiver is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Courts must carefully distinguish between materials that genuinely bear on the defense and those that continue to reflect protected legal advice or attorney work product.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with workplace investigations and to answer questions regarding privilege, work-product protection, and discovery obligations.

The New Jersey Department of Labor has clarified through a public announcement that eligible employees may be entitled to job protection while receiving Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) benefits, while recent amendments also expand eligibility under the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Employers should assess how these changes may affect leave administration, staffing and compliance obligations. Read more about these developments and their impact on New Jersey employers.

AI tools offer a multitude of potential benefits in the workplace. They can also create significant legal, privacy, and cybersecurity risk if not properly managed. Adopting an employee AI Acceptable Use Policy can help manage that risk.  

Below are five key reasons why HR professionals and in-house counsel should prioritize the development of an AI Acceptable Use Policy.

  1. Control Which AI Tools Employees May Use

One of the most significant risks accompanying workplace AI adoption is the use of unauthorized, publicly available AI tools by employees to perform work-related tasks. When employees input company information into unapproved AI platforms, organizations may inadvertently expose confidential, proprietary, personal, or regulated data to third parties, creating significant privacy, cybersecurity, and compliance risks.

To mitigate these risks, a clear AI Acceptable Use Policy will identify approved, organization-vetted AI tools and expressly prohibit the use of unauthorized AI applications for business purposes. Requiring employees to use only approved platforms helps ensure that AI solutions undergo appropriate review by legal, information security, privacy, compliance, and IT stakeholders before deployment.

  1. Promote Compliance with Privacy, Intellectual Property, and Employment Laws

Employees’ use of AI tools can create a range of legal and compliance risks if not properly governed. For example, employees may inadvertently upload copyrighted materials, disclose employee personal information or confidential business data, record or monitor individuals without appropriate notice or consent, or rely on AI-generated output that is inaccurate, biased, or discriminatory. These activities can expose employers to potential liability under privacy, intellectual property, employment, and anti-discrimination laws, as well as sector-specific regulatory requirements.

To mitigate these risks, a comprehensive AI Acceptable Use Policy will clearly define both permitted and prohibited uses of AI tools. It will also establish categories of information that may or may not be entered into AI systems, set parameters for the appropriate use of AI-generated content, and require human review of AI outputs before they are relied upon for business decisions. Employers should also consider incorporating requirements for use case risk assessments, approval processes, and ongoing monitoring to help ensure that AI tools are used responsibly, consistently, and in compliance with applicable legal and regulatory obligations.

  1. Prevent Cybersecurity Risks

AI tools can interact with an organization’s systems, business processes, and data assets including, in some cases, confidential, proprietary, or personal information. As with any new technology, the use of an AI tool can introduce additional cybersecurity, privacy, and data governance risks if appropriate safeguards are not in place. For example, AI applications may increase the risk of data leakage, unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, inadequate employee access controls, or security vulnerabilities arising from improper configuration or integration with existing systems.

An AI Acceptable Use Policy will establish clear governance standards governing the acquisition and use of AI technologies by setting forth requirements for the evaluation, approval, and secure use. The policy should reinforce compliance with existing cybersecurity policies and controls.

  1. Reinforce Existing Corporate Policies and Standards of Conduct

Employees’ use of AI tools should be governed by the same standards and expectations that apply to all workplace conduct, including the organization’s Code of Conduct, information security policies, confidentiality obligations, and anti-harassment and equal employment opportunity policies.

Providing employees with clear guidance on acceptable and prohibited uses of AI tools can help mitigate the risk of conduct that creates legal, compliance, or reputational exposure. For example, employers may wish to prohibit the use of AI tools to generate deepfakes or other deceptive synthetic media, impersonate colleagues, customers, or business partners, create discriminatory, harassing, or otherwise inappropriate communications, or engage in unauthorized business activities. Establishing clear guardrails can help reduce the likelihood that AI tools will be used in ways that violate workplace policies or applicable law.

  1. Establish Clear Accountability and AI Governance

Effective AI governance requires more than identifying acceptable uses. An AI Acceptable Use Policy will also promote accountability. In addition to defining expectations for employee conduct, the policy should address the consequences of noncompliance and identify the individuals or functions responsible for overseeing implementation, training, and ongoing compliance.

Assigning clear ownership of AI governance helps ensure that AI-related risks are appropriately managed and that the organization’s use of AI remains aligned with its legal obligations, ethical standards, and business objectives.

Conclusion

HR professionals and in-house counsel play a key role in ensuring that organizations integrate and use AI tools in the workplace in a responsible and consistent manner. A well-crafted policy can serve as a critical governance tool, reducing enterprise risk while enabling employees to leverage AI tools in a secure and compliant manner.

Employers should also consider implementing training programs to educate employees on appropriate use and risks associated with AI tools. Ongoing training and monitoring can help reinforce policy requirements and promote consistent, compliant use of AI tools across the organization.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with questions regarding AI governance, privacy, and cybersecurity in the workplace.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Organizations should consult legal counsel regarding the development of AI governance policies tailored to their specific operations and regulatory obligations.

Takeaways

  • The New Jersey Appellate Division in Sanders held that the state’s cannabis statute allows an aggrieved individual to bring a private lawsuit in a court of law.
  • Employers should ensure their current practices and policies are compliant with the law’s anti-discrimination provisions, which prohibit taking an adverse employment action against an employee or refusing to hire an individual because of their use or non-use of cannabis.

Until the New Jersey Appellate Division’s decision in Sanders v. The Levari Group, d/b/a First Choice Freezer[MS1] , No.  A-2715-23 (May 26, 2026), it was unclear whether an individual could bring a private lawsuit alleging discrimination in violation of the state’s cannabis law, the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Market Modernization Act (CREAMMA). The Appellate Division recently held that individuals who allege to have suffered adverse employment actions because of their use of cannabis could bring a claim of violation of CREAMMA in court.

Notably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in a 2024 decision that CREAMMA did not create a private right of action.

Legislative History

In November 2020, the New Jersey Legislature amended the New Jersey Constitution to legalize recreational cannabis use by individuals aged 21 and over.

On Feb. 22, 2021, the Legislature enacted CREAMMA, which aimed to control and legalize the use of cannabis like the state’s regulation of the use of alcohol. The Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) was created and tasked with regulating the use of cannabis in the state.

CREAMMA also includes anti-discrimination provisions, prohibiting employers from failing to hire, discharging, or otherwise subjecting an individual to an adverse employment action because of the individual’s legal use of cannabis.

Although CREAMMA authorizes the CRC to take enforcement action or impose sanctions on an entity licensed to sell cannabis, the CRC’s regulations do not contain any procedures for enforcement actions against unlicensed individuals or entities.

Sanders Decision

In Sanders, Darlene Sanders alleged that, after accepting a position with the employer, she was required to take a drug test. Her test results were positive for cannabis. When she contacted the HR department to inquire about her start date, they “offered [her] the opportunity to submit to a repeat drug test.” When she failed to take another test, the employer rescinded the employment offer and refused to hire her.

The Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff’s Complaint, finding no evidence the Legislature meant to create a private right for individuals to bring lawsuits to enforce CREAMMA. The plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the lower court decision in a matter of first impression. The court held CREAMMA provides individuals a private right of action for adverse employment actions because of their use of cannabis.

What This Means for Employers

Employers should review their hiring practices and policies, as well as their employee handbooks and other relevant policies, to ensure compliance with CREAMMA’s provisions. Further, employers should ensure that all employment decisions are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and, specifically, not an individual’s use of cannabis.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with any aspect of CREAMMA compliance and are available to answer your questions.

This blog will provide timely commentary on developments in New Jersey employment and workplace law, including legislative and regulatory changes, key court decisions and evolving workplace issues. Its purpose is to offer clear, practical insights that help readers understand how legal developments may impact employers and the workplace.

Designed for employers, HR professionals, and others with an interest in New Jersey workplace law, this blog will deliver straightforward analysis and relevant context on issues affecting workplaces across the state.

The New Jersey Workplace Law Blog will follow a consistent and thoughtful publishing approach:

  • Publishing Schedule: New posts will be published twice per month, every other Wednesday.
  • Contributor Insights: Posts will feature insights from Jackson Lewis attorneys experienced in New Jersey employment and workplace law.
  • Content Focus: Topics will include recent legal developments, practical workplace considerations, and common questions employers encounter.
  • Distribution: Blog posts will be published here and emailed to subscribers and posted on JacksonLewis.com.

The New Jersey Workplace Law Blog is intended to serve as a reliable resource for staying informed about workplace law developments in New Jersey.

We look forward to sharing insights and updates through this new platform. Subscribe now!

On May 4, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division, in a published opinion, prohibited successive motions for reconsideration of a final order. In the case, Doglio v. Boasso Am. Corp., the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, disposing of all claims as to all parties. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration under Court Rule 4:49-2 within twenty days of the grant of summary judgment, which the trial court subsequently denied. After the denial of the motion for reconsideration and with nothing pending, the trial court sua sponte reconsidered the grant of summary judgment as well as its denial of the motion for reconsideration. As a result, the trial court reinstated the matter for trial.

The Appellate Division, in reversing the trial court, held that a motion for reconsideration of a final order must be filed within twenty days of that order under Rule 4:49-2. Once a motion for reconsideration of a final order is denied, neither the trial court, on its own initiative, nor a party may take any action to vacate that final order. The opinion also clarified that the denial of a motion for reconsideration does not create a “new final judgment” subject to reconsideration under Rule 4:49-2.

The opinion focused on the principles favoring a policy of finality in summary judgment orders. Specifically, the Appellate Division cautioned that “[a]llowing a never-ending sequence of motions for reconsideration jeopardizes that policy and undermines the finality Rule 4:49-2 was designed to secure.”

The Doglio opinion firmly establishes the principle that “repetitive bites at the apple” swiftly sour the core. In this precedential opinion, the Appellate Division’s holding will limit the extent of post final-judgment motion practice and provide finality to parties.

New Jersey employers should begin preparing for significant amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA), which are scheduled to take effect on July 17, 2026.

The amendments broaden both employer coverage and employee eligibility:

  • Private employers with at least 15 employees during the relevant workweeks will be covered, lowering the current 30-employee threshold.
  • Employees will become eligible much sooner:
    • The service requirement will drop from 12 months to three months, and
    • The hours-worked requirement will drop from 1,000 base hours to 250 base hours during the immediately preceding 12-month period.

Employers Most Likely Affected

These changes are especially important for smaller employers and out-of-state employers with New Jersey-based employees. A business that previously was not covered by the NJFLA may need to comply once the amendments take effect.

Impact on TDI + FLI Benefits

The amendments also raise important questions regarding New Jersey Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) benefits.

  • The new statutory language provides that employees who take TDI or FLI benefits are entitled, upon expiration of the leave, to be restored to the position they held when leave began or to an equivalent position with like seniority, status, benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.
    • This language may significantly expand job-protection obligations for employers, although questions remain as to whether the amendments create new leave rights or add job-protection requirements to existing leave and benefit rights.
  • The amendments also clarify that employees who are eligible for New Jersey Earned Sick Leave and TDI or FLI benefits may choose the order in which to use those benefits but may not receive more than one kind of paid leave simultaneously for the same period.

What to Do Now

  • Employers with New Jersey employees should begin preparing now to review and update leave policies, handbooks, HR procedures, and manager training.
  • Employers also should consider how the amended NJFLA will interact with FMLA, PTO policies, New Jersey Earned Sick Leave, TDI, FLI, benefits continuation, and COBRA administration.

We are actively assisting clients with updating policies, procedures, and training on the NJFLA amendments before their effective date to help reduce compliance risk and minimize operational disruption once the expanded family leave protections take effect.