Tag: New Jersey

Are New Jersey Uber Drivers Covered By Workers’ Compensation Insurance?

You might ask yourself the above question if you are considering signing up to drive for the transportation service Uber. Uber promises that anyone with a valid driver’s license, personal car insurance, a clean record, and a four-door car can meet the New Jersey requirements to drive for Uber.

The Uber driver makes his or her own hours and is free to pick up or drop off a rider anywhere they chose and the driver can work as much or as little as they choose. Uber requires its drivers to carry the appropriate automobile insurance to cover the driver’s liability to other parties, damage to the vehicle and injury to the driver.

Uber provides commercial auto liability insurance for drivers to protect against injury to others. Uber drivers are paid a percentage of the fares they generate and receive a 1099 form yearly from Uber so that they can declare their earnings and pay their own taxes on the money they earn.

Since Uber does not consider its drivers employees, or provide workers’ compensation coverage in the event an Uber driver is injured, it is important to know what you are giving up by being an Independent Contractor/Uber driver.

Workers’ compensation coverage in New Jersey includes weekly wage replacement paid at 70% of wages, medical care paid 100% by the workers’ compensation carrier, and partial or total permanency benefits paid for a period of time if the injured worker is left with an impairment after all of the medical treatment is provided.

The courts in New Jersey have not decided any workers’ compensation cases for Uber drivers, however, they have decided cases for other employees who drive for other car services. Although the facts of each individual case vary, the case explained below gives an idea of the factors the court considers when deciding if a driver is an independent contractor or an employee.

The courts have outlined a 12-part test to determine if a person is an employee or an independent contractor, for the purpose of whether or not New Jersey workers’ compensation coverage applies. These factors include the employer’s right to control the manner of the work, the extent of supervision needed, who furnishes the equipment, how the person is paid, whether there is paid vacation and sick time, and whether the “employer” pays Social Security taxes, and the intention of the parties.

In a recent court case in New Jersey, the Appellate Division found that a limousine driver for the XYZ Two Way Radio Company was an independent contractor and not an employee when the driver was injured in a serious motor vehicle accident. The court analyzed the above factors and found that XYZ Two Way Radio Company exercised little control over the driver since he could work as many or as few hours as he wanted.

The Court noted that the driver supplied his own equipment, including his own vehicle and auto insurance, and that the company only provided a small car computer that was used to communicate with the office. The driver was paid a percentage of the fares he generated, and was free to reject any pick-up sent to him by the company. The driver was sent a 1099 form every year and no Social Security or wage taxes were paid by the company.

Based on all of these circumstances the Court found that the driver for XYZ Two Way Radio was an independent contractor, and not an employee entitled to workers’ compensation coverage. This was despite the fact that that the driver worked for the company for 23 years, was told what type of car he must drive and what to wear, and worked a fairly regular schedule.

Comparing the above case to the factors relevant to the Uber driver, courts in New Jersey may consider Uber drivers independent contractors and not employees subject to workers’ compensation coverage. Uber is still taking the position that its drivers are Independent contractors, not subject to workers’ compensation in New Jersey.

However, this has not yet been the subject of an Appellate Court decision. If you work for Uber and get injured in an accident while working, your own automobile coverage would provide some medical care, and possibly some weekly wage replacement benefits, but probably not to the level of coverage provided under the workers’ compensation laws in New Jersey.

Your own automobile policy would not provide the permanency benefits provided under the workers’ compensation statute in this state. Probably not a deal breaker for many given the flexibility offered by Uber, but at least Uber drivers should be aware of the workers’ compensation benefits they may be giving up.

 

COPYRIGHT © 2019, Stark & Stark.
This post was written by Marci Hill Jordan of Stark & Stark.

One-Two Punch for NJ Employers: State Enacts Minimum Wage Rate Increases and Expands Paid Family Leave Insurance Benefits

New Jersey’s minimum wage rates will steadily climb to $15 per hour, and both the duration and amount of the state’s paid family leave insurance benefits will significantly increase, under two recently enacted laws.

New Minimum Wage Rates

On February 4, 2019, Governor Murphy signed a bill that substantially increases the state’s minimum wage rate for non-exempt hourly workers.

Prior to the bill’s enactment, the state’s minimum hourly wage, as of January 1, 2019, was $8.85. With a few exceptions for seasonal workers (who work between May 1 and September 30), employees employed by a “small business” with fewer than six employees, and agricultural laborers, the minimum hourly wage will rise to $15.00 by January 1, 2024, in accordance with the following schedule:

7/1/19 $10.00
1/1/20 11.00
1/1/21 12.00
1/1/22 13.00
1/1/23 14.00
1/1/24 15.00

For seasonal workers and employees of small businesses, the minimum hourly wage rate increases will be more gradual and will not reach the $15.00 rate until January 1, 2026, based on the following schedule:

1/1/20 $10.30
1/1/21 11.10
1/1/22 11.90
1/1/23 12.70
1/1/24 13.50
1/1/25 14.30
1/1/26 15.00

It will take an even longer period of time for farm laborers to reach a minimum hourly wage rate of $15, given the following schedule:

1/1/20 $10.30
1/1/22 10.90
1/1/23 11.70
1/1/24 12.50

Any further minimum rate increases for farm laborers would be tied to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (“CPI-W”).

New Jersey now joins three other states – California, New York and Massachusetts – as well as the District of Columbia in committing to minimum hourly wage rates that significantly exceed the current federal minimum hourly wage rate of $7.25.

Business groups in New Jersey have voiced two principal objections to the new minimum rates. First, the numbers threshold for meeting the “small employer” exception is relatively low – employers with six or more employees do not satisfy it. Second, the New Jersey statute, unlike the California and New York laws, makes no provision for suspending scheduled minimum hourly rate increases in the event of deteriorating economic conditions in the state.

Family Leave Enhancements

On February 19, 2019, Governor Murphy signed into law a bill that substantially expands the job-protected family leave requirements applicable to smaller employers under the New Jersey Family Leave Act (“FLA”), as well as expands the monetary benefits available under the paid family leave insurance (“FLI”) and temporary disability insurance (“TDI”) programs for employees employed in New Jersey.

Under the state’s leave and benefit programs (which must be coordinated with applicable federal requirements), an eligible employee may take time off from work and receive family insurance benefits during such leave to, among other things, care for a newborn child or a covered family member who is suffering from a serious health condition.

Effective immediately,

  • There no longer is a one-week waiting period before FLI benefits may be received.

  • Covered family members under the new law now include siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, and parents-in-law, as well as others related to the employee by blood or who have a “close association with the employee” which is equivalent to a family relationship (though evidence of same must be provided by the employee).

  • FLI benefits may also be taken by a covered employee while taking time off from work pursuant to the NJ Security and Financial Empowerment Act (“SAFE Act”), to assist a covered family member who is a victim of domestic or sexual violence.

  • An employer may not retaliate against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the employee took or requested any TDI or FLI benefits.

Effective June 30, 2019, NJ businesses employing at least 30 employees will be covered by the FLA and may not retaliate against employees returning from family leave by refusing to reinstate them, down from a 50 employee threshold.

Commencing July 1, 2020, the maximum duration of FLI leave benefits will increase from 6 to 12 weeks during any 12-month period; in cases of intermittent leave, the maximum FLI leave will increase from 42 days to 56 days. Further, the dollar amount of weekly FLI benefits will increase from two-thirds of a claimant’s average weekly wage to 85% of an employee’s average weekly wage, capped at $859 per week.

Although FLI benefits are funded entirely by employee contributions, NJ-based businesses have raised concerns that the broader eligibility for FLI leave, and the longer duration of such leaves, will increase business costs due to the need to pay more overtime wages to assure adequate staff coverage, or employ more temporary replacement workers, while eligible employees are out on leave. These increases may also lead to greater work load demands placed on regular employees who must cover while co-workers are out on such leave.

Employer Tips

NJ employers should assure that the wage rates they pay their employees meet the new NJ minimum wage rate thresholds.

Further, NJ employers should review and update their family leave policies to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the new law, which is complicated and substantially amends multiple existing laws.

 

© Copyright 2019 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

New Jersey Announces Minimum Wage Increase

Governor Murphy, Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin have just announced their plan to increase New Jersey’s minimum wage to $15 per hour. Currently, minimum wage in New Jersey is $8.85 per hour.

Under the proposed plan, minimum wage would increase to $10/hour on July 1, 2019. Minimum wage would then increase by a dollar per year as follows:

  • 1/1/2020 – $11
  • 1/1/2021 – $12
  • 1/1/2022 – $13
  • 1/1/2023 – $14
  • 1/1/2024 – $15

Note that this increase will be delayed for some workers. Seasonal workers and employees at businesses with five or few workers won’t be eligible for the $15 minimum wage until 1/1/26. Agricultural workers will also be subject to different rules. More details on the plan will certainly follow in the coming weeks.

 

© 2019 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved
Read more news on minimum wage increases on the National Law Review’s Employment Law Page.

New Jersey Appellate Panel Countenances Beach Easement Condemnations for Federal Funding

A New Jersey appeals court recently upheld the Township of Long Beach’s exercise of eminent domain to acquire beachfront access easements in the consolidated appeal of Twp. of Long Beach v. Tomasi, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) – the latest chapter in a series of disputes between coastal New Jersey municipalities and owners of beachfront property within those municipalities.

The Township of Long Beach sought federal funding pursuant to the “Sandy Act,” which authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”) to protect the New Jersey shoreline through beach replenishment and dune construction projects funded either in whole or in part by the federal government. See Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Sandy Act), Pub. L. No. 113-2, 127 Stat. 4. In order to obtain such federal participation and funding, the township was required to comply with conditions set forth in the Army Corps’ engineering regulations, including the requirement that participating municipalities provide “reasonable public access rights-of-way” to the beach, defined as “approximately every one-half mile or less.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook 3-20 (2000); see also N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.9.

As the township’s shoreline did not have the required public access, it resolved to obtain public access easements in various locations to achieve compliance with the Army Corps and NJDEP regulations such that it would be eligible for inclusion in an ongoing shoreline protection project undertaken by those entities. Accordingly, the township passed appropriate resolutions authorizing it to condemn and acquire via eminent domain four public access beach easements, including a ten-foot-wide strip of land along the defendants’ properties. After unsuccessfully negotiating with the defendants to purchase the easements, the township initiated condemnation proceedings in the Superior Court, giving rise to the Tomasilitigation.

In September 2017 the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the township and held that it had properly exercised its eminent domain power in acquiring the beach easements for public use. The defendants appealed and sought reversal based on their contention that the township was unable to establish either necessity or proper public purpose for the condemnations. More specifically, the defendants argued that reasonable beach access already existed in the township such that there was no necessity to condemn the easements under the Public Trust Doctrine or otherwise; and that the stated impetus for the condemnations, i.e. seeking federal funding, could not constitute a viable public purpose.

On December 20, 2018, the two-judge appellate panel issued its decision affirming the lower court and rejecting both of the defendant-appellants’ primary arguments. The court noted its “limited and deferential” review of municipal exercises of eminent domain power, cited the traditionally broad conceptual scope of public use, and held that the township’s undertaking to protect its shoreline – including conforming to state or federal requirements to obtain project funding – was a proper public use or purpose.

There are several relevant takeaways from the Tomasi decision, though they should be understood with an important caveat. The court resolved the narrow question before it without engaging in a comprehensive or detailed legal analysis and as a result, land use practitioners and municipal personnel should be cautious not to overstate the holding in this brief unpublished opinion. Nevertheless, the Tomasi decision is significant based on its factual distinctions from more traditional beach easement litigations.

Specifically, the easements at issue in Tomasi were for perpendicular access to the beach and ocean rather than for dune construction. Though both dune construction and access easements relate to shore protection, the former directly enable and contribute to such protection, whereas the latter are merely incidental to it. In that sense, the Tomasi easements are arguably less justifiable than dune construction easements in the eminent domain context – and the defendants in Tomasi appeared to base their public purpose-driven arguments on precisely that premise. However, the court evidently did not find the above-described “direct vs. incidental” distinction meaningful and rejected the defendants’ argument, finding that pursuing federal funding for shoreline protection was a sufficient public purpose for eminent domain purposes.

Under the facts of this case, that is a logically defensible outcome, as the township’s acquisition of the access easements was a de-facto prerequisite for constructing dunes and otherwise protecting its shoreline area, per the Army Corps and NJDEP regulations. Accordingly, a possible implication for future cases is that the precise nature of the condemnation easement in question will not necessarily be dispositive, and the focus of a reviewing court’s inquiry instead will be whether such an easement is ultimately necessary to effectuate the contemplated shoreline protection program.

It is unclear if this premise informed the court’s decision in Tomasi. To the extent that it may have, it would be valuable for municipalities, property owners, and land use practitioners to know that the court employs a functional analysis in evaluating public use / purpose in eminent domain cases. Similarly, but conversely, it would be equally valuable for those stakeholders to know that the court did not equate access easements with dune construction easements but rather expanded the scope of eminent domain by permitting condemnation for easements which are merely incidental to shore protection.

Accordingly, the ambiguity in this space following the Tomasi decision is worth monitoring, both in that litigation as the Supreme Court considers whether to hear a (presently unfiled but) likely forthcoming appeal, and in future cases with similar or slightly different facts. Though its implications are presently limited, the Tomasi case clearly stands for the proposition that beach access condemnation easements to obtain federal funding for shore protection projects are permissible exercises of municipal eminent domain power.

 

© 2018 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Latest Decision Affecting Pharmaceutical Multicounty Litigation

On October 3, 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court made its long-awaited decision in the Accutane Multicounty Litigation. Developed by the New Jersey-based pharmaceutical giant Hoffman-La Roche, Accutane is a prescription acne treatment that has been found to be linked to inflammatory bowel disease.

Numerous plaintiffs filed lawsuits in New Jersey, essentially claiming that, based upon the drug maker’s own internal documents, Accutane’s warnings should have been stronger in stating that Accutane has been found to directly cause inflammatory bowel disease. A Multicounty Litigation was formed, which encompassed 532 plaintiffs – of which 18 were New Jersey residents, and 514 were residents of 44 different jurisdictions other than New Jersey.

In 2015, the trial court basically ruled that NJ’s Product Liability Act governed all of the cases in the Multicounty Litigation. Unlike the law in most other states, New Jersey’s Product Liability Act contains a rebuttable presumption that basically holds that a drug maker’s warning is adequate if it was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. The presumption can only be overcome if the plaintiffs show deliberate nondisclosure to the Food and Drug Administration, economically driven manipulation of the regulatory process, or clear and convincing evidence that the drug maker knew or should have known of the inadequacy of the warnings in light of the relevant federal regulations. Having found that the presumption applies to all of the cases, the trial court then held that the plaintiffs could not overcome the presumption and dismissed the cases.

That decision was appealed and the Appellate Division found that New Jersey’s Product Liability Act did not govern all of the cases, and that each case was governed by the respective laws of the jurisdictions where the plaintiff used Accutane. The Appellate Division analyzed the many different legal standards and found that the cases from the vast majority of the jurisdictions involved (including New Jersey), should not be summarily dismissed based on the federal approval presumption.

The matter was then taken up by the Supreme Court, which held that New Jersey has an interest in consistent, fair, and reliable outcomes in its consolidated Multicounty Litigation cases that cannot be achieved by applying a “diverse quilt of laws.” Having found that all of cases in the Multicounty Litigation were governed by New Jersey’s Product Liability Act, the Supreme Court went on to hold that the plaintiffs had not overcome Act’s rebuttable presumption and that the drug maker’s approved warnings were adequate as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed all 532 cases.

The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s holding are still unclear. A recent, palpable lull in New Jersey Multicounty Litigation applications and filings was followed by changes on the bench through judicial retirements and promotions. Thereafter, there was a relative flurry of designations of Multicounty Litigations for Abilify, Taxotere, Zostavax and Physiomesh, all in the late spring and summer of 2018. No doubt, this Supreme Court ruling will serve to shape the procedural structure and legal strategy of the parties in all pending and contemplated pharmaceutical Multicounty Litigations in New Jersey.

 

COPYRIGHT © 2018, Stark & Stark.

State Investments in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

Various studies indicate that an overall lack of charging infrastructure serves as an impediment to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). However, the road to transportation electrification is officially under construction following several major state investments.

At the end of May, in the largest single state-level investment in EV charging infrastructure, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved more than $760 million worth of transportation electrification projects by the State’s three investor-owned utilities. The CPUC’s Decision, See A.17-01-020, Proposed Decision of ALJs Goldberg and Cook (May 31, 2018),  authorized Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE) to install vehicle chargers at more than 1,500 sites supporting 15,000 medium or heavy-duty vehicles. The FD also approved rebates to San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) residential customers for installing up to 60,000 240-volt charging stations at their homes. Moreover, PG&E was authorized to build 234 DC fast-charging stations.

Besides the total spend and resulting emissions reductions represented by the Commission’s action, the Proposed Decision is also notable for the policy priorities it advances.  For instance, it clearly prioritizes the creation of electrification-related benefits for California’s disadvantaged communities (DACs).  (The authorizing legislation, SB 350, found that “[w]idespread transportation electrification requires increased access for disadvantaged communities . . . and increased use of [EVs] in those communities . . . to enhance air quality, lower greenhouse gases emissions, and promote overall benefits to those communities” § 740.12(a)(1)(C) (De Leon)).  Accordingly, the CPUC focused on promoting construction of charging infrastructure in DACs.   For example, the PG&E fast charging program will target construction in DACs by providing up to $25,000 per DC fast charger in rebates to cover a portion of the charger cost for sites located in DACs.

The CPUC also prioritizes the survival of non-utility charging competition.  For example, the Proposed Decision eliminates utility ownership of the charging infrastructure on the customer side of the meter in the SDG&E residential charging program. Additionally, for the PG&E and SCE’s medium and heavy-duty programs, the utilities will own make-ready infrastructure, but not the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). Instead, the utilities will allow customers to choose their own EVSE models, EVSE installation vendors, and any network services providers.

The CPUC noted several benefits of allowing the utility to own electrification infrastructure only up to the point of the EVSE stub.  First, the Commission found that “[u]tility ownership of the charging infrastructure dramatically drives up costs, in comparison to alternative ownership models.” Instead, restricting utility ownership of charging equipment will allow more charging infrastructure to be built at the same (or lower) cost to ratepayers. Second, it allows private parties to compete and innovate, which will improve charging technology and lower costs. Lastly, non-utility competition addresses “stranded cost” fears, since private parties will bear the risks of nascent charging technologies.

While California has made the largest commitment, other states have also joined the effort to pave a national road toward the widespread adoption of EVs.

In New Jersey, utility company PSE&G recently proposed spending $300 million to set up a network of up to 50,000 charging stations. This investment would constitute a massive upgrade to New Jersey’s charging infrastructure, which currently consists of less than 600 charging stations according to U.S. Department of Energy data. The proposed investment is part of a larger $5.4 billion expansion in PSE&G’s five-year infrastructure plan, and represents the first major proposal of New Jersey’s largest utility to invest in EV infrastructure.

In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a $40 million commitment (that could grow to $250 million by 2025) by the New York Power Authority for its EVolve NY initiative. The new funding will be used to build fast chargers and to support EV model communities. EVolve NY is a part of the broader Charge NY 2.0 initiative, which advances electric car adoption by increasing the number of charging stations statewide. The new funding will aid New York as it aims to meet its particularly ambitious goal of 800,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2025.

Late last year, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities approved a $45 million charging station program by local utility, Eversource. The program includes investments to support the deployment of almost 4,000 “Level 2 Stations” and 72 DC Fast Charging stations. Even more investment could be on its way to Massachusetts as utility company National Grid has also proposed investing in charging station infrastructure.

And in Maryland, utility companies have proposed spending $104 million to build a network of 24,000 residential, workplace and public charging stations. The program, currently before the state’s Public Service Commission, would be a major part of Maryland’s effort to reach 300,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2025.

On the federal level, energy-related projects could be eligible for the $20 billion “Transformative Projects Program” announced by the Trump administration in February.  However, President Trump recently remarked that his infrastructure plan will likely have to wait until after this year’s midterm elections.  In the meantime, states have shown that they are more than willing to take the lead in investing in transportation electrification infrastructure.  (In related news this week, Colorado’s decision to move toward adopting California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles represents a parallel and noteworthy development, further indicating leadership and action from states focused on developing advanced vehicle technology.)  It’s also notable that in addition to utility commission activity, states are also expressing support for advanced vehicle technology While the states have certainly taken a lead, their investments also complement significant action in the private sector, including the recent effort to stand up the Transportation Electrification Accord.  See our recent post on that subject, and continue to follow Inside Energy and Environment for continued updates on this subject.

© 2018 Covington & Burling LLP

This post also includes contributions from Michael Rebuck, a summer associate.

This post was written by Jake Levine Covington & Burling LLP.

New Jersey Expands Medical Cannabis Program

On March 27, 2018, New Jersey approved a significant expansion of its medical marijuana program. Reforms include eligibility for patients with anxiety, chronic pain, migraines and Tourette’s syndrome. The move is expected to expand the number of eligible patients far beyond the current level of 18,874. Registration fees will be lowered for patients and the public registry for participating physicians abolished. Currently only 536 out of 28,000 physicians are registered in the program. The loosening of these restrictions aims to address the low rate of participation by doctors and patients relative to other comparably populated states. Medical marijuana has been legal in New Jersey since 2010.

“We are changing the restrictive culture of our medical marijuana program to make it more patient-friendly,” Governor Phil Murphy said. “We are adding five new categories of medical conditions, reducing patient and caregiver fees, and recommending changes in law so patients will be able to obtain the amount of product that they need. Some of these changes will take time, but we are committed to getting it done for all New Jersey residents who can be helped by access to medical marijuana.”

New Jersey has five dispensaries, also known as Alternative Treatment Centers (ATCs). A sixth ATC is preparing to open its doors in the near future. As a result of the reforms, these ATCs will be able to open satellite locations for the first time. In addition, the 10 percent limit on THC will be removed. “Patients should be treated as patients, not criminals. We will be guided by science,” Murphy said.

Further Legalization

Governor Murphy, a Democrat, indicated he wants to sign legislation to legalize adult use of cannabis by the end of 2018. If the legislation succeeds, analysts predict legalization will generate $1 billion of revenue in its first year.

New Jersey has two competing legalization bills under consideration in the legislature that vary regarding the proposed rate of taxation, legality of home cultivation, the number of shops permitted to operate and the level of government regulation. Political momentum for cannabis reform has been growing in the wake of successful programs in Colorado, Washington and other states. Some New Jersey legislators support legalization as a method of generating revenue required for funding other budgetary obligations.

Nationwide, 29 states have medical cannabis programs. If the pending legislation succeeds, New Jersey will be the ninth state to approve recreational use. This rapidly changing landscape of cannabis law requires a diverse array of legal services. Important areas include business formation & governance, commercial transactions, regulatory compliance, labor & employment, professional liability, product liability, intellectual property, insurance coverage and tax assistance. Because cannabis laws vary from state to state, national firms will undoubtedly lead this rapidly expanding area of specialization.

 

© 2018 Wilson Elser.
This post was written by James Cope of Wilson Elser.

New Jersey Extends EDA Loan Program to Minority or Women Owned Businesses

Governor Christie signed A1451 into law this week making EDA loans through the Urban Plus Program available to small, minority or women owned businesses located in designated New Jersey regional centers or metropolitan planning areas as if such businesses were located in urban centers.   Minority or woman owned business enterprises (MWBE) must be certified through the Department of Treasury.  As a qualification, MWBE applicants must demonstrate that the business is operated and controlled by a management team of women or minorities and such company is owned by a majority of minorities or women. The business must be involved with a commercially useful function and the minority or female ownership and management must be real, substantial, and continuing and not merely in name only.

 

© 2018 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
This post was written by Melissa V. Skrocki of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. 

Privacy Hat Trick: Three New State Laws to Juggle

Nevada, Oregon and New Jersey recently passed laws focusing on the collection of consumer information, serving as a reminder for advertisers, retailers, publishers and data collectors to keep up-to-date, accurate and compliant privacy and information collection policies.

Nevada: A Website Privacy Notice is Required

Nevada joined California and Delaware in explicitly requiring websites and online services to post an accessible privacy notice. The Nevada law, effective October 1, 2017, requires disclosure of the following:

  • The categories of “covered information” collected about consumers who visit the website or online service;

  • The categories of third parties with whom the operator may share such information;

  • A description of the process, if any, through which consumers may review and request changes to their information;

  • A description of the process by which operators will notify consumers of material changes to the notice;

  • Whether a third party may collect covered information about the consumer’s online activities over time and across different Internet websites or online services; and

  • The effective date of the notice.

“Covered Information” is defined to include a consumer’s name, address, email address, telephone number, social security number, an identifier that allows a specific person to be contacted physically or online, and any other information concerning a person maintained by the operator in combination with an identifier.

Takeaway: Website and online service operators (including Ad Techs and other data collectors) should review their privacy policies to ensure they are disclosing all collection of information that identifies, can be used to contact, or that is combined with information that identifies consumers. Website operators should also be sure that they are aware of, and are properly disclosing, any information that is shared with or collected by their third-party service providers and how that information is used.

Oregon: Misrepresentation of Privacy Practices = Unlawful Trade Practice.

Oregon expanded its definition of an “unlawful trade practice”, effective January 1, 2018, to expressly include using, disclosing, collecting, maintaining, deleting or disposing of information in a manner materially inconsistent with any statement or representation published on a business’s website or in a consumer agreement related to a consumer transaction.The new Oregon law is broader than other similar state laws, which limit their application to “personal information”. Oregon’s law, which does not define “information”, could apply to misrepresentations about any information collection practices, even if not related to consumer personal information.

Takeaway: Businesses should be mindful when drafting privacy policies, terms of use, sweepstakes and contest rules and other consumer-facing policies and statements not to misrepresent their practices with respect to any information collected, not just personal information.

New Jersey: ID Cards Can Only be Scanned for Limited Purposes (not Advertising)

New Jersey’s new Personal Information and Privacy Protection Act, effective October 1, 2017, limits the purposes for which a retail establishment may scan a person’s identification card to the following:

  • To verify the authenticity of the card or the identity of the person paying for goods or services with a method other than cash, returning an item or requesting a refund or exchange;

  • To verify the person’s age when providing age-restricted goods or services to the person;

  • To prevent fraud or other criminal activity using a fraud prevention service company or system if the person returns an item or requests a refund or exchange;

  • To prevent fraud or other criminal activity related to a credit transaction to open or manage a credit account;

  • To establish or maintain a contractual relationship;

  • To record, retain, or transmit information required by State or federal law;

  • To transmit information to a consumer reporting agency, financial institution, or debt collector to be used as permitted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; or

  • To record, retain, or transmit information governed by the medical privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

The law also prohibits the retention of information scanned from an identification card for verification purposes and specifically prohibits the sharing of information scanned from an identification card with a third party for marketing, advertising or promotional activities, or any other purpose not specified above. The law does make an exception to permit a retailer’s automated return fraud system to share ID information with a third party for purposes of issuing a reward coupon to a loyal customer.

Takeaway: Retail establishments with locations in New Jersey should review their point-of-sale practices to ensure they are not scanning ID cards for marketing, advertising, promotional or any other purposes not permitted by the New Jersey law.

Read more legal analysis at the National Law Review.

This post was written byJulie Erin Rubash of  Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Same-Sex Divorces in New Jersey

On September 27, 2013, in a landmark case for the state, Garden State Equality v. Dow, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobsonruled that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry. While Governor Chris Christie immediately stated that his administration would be appealing the ruling, he eventually withdrew his appeal, and the first same-sex marriages in the state were performed just after midnight on October 21, 2013. Prior to this date, same-sex couples were only allowed to enter into civil unions in the state, which were not recognized by the federal government.

Same-sex couples in New Jersey now have the same rights as opposite-sex couples. These rights are most frequently recognized during the divorce process; namely with regards to the equitable distribution of assets acquired during the marriage and alimony that may be paid to the dependent spouse. Both of these concepts are dealt with by the court and determined through application of a variety of factors. One of the most important factors at issue with same-sex divorces is the length of the marriage. Obviously, same-sex marriages are likely to be shorter in duration than heterosexual marriages simply because same-sex couples were not legally allowed to marry until almost two years ago, and were only permitted to enter into civil unions since 2007 when The Civil Union Act was signed into law by then-Governor Jon Corzine.

However, because same-sex marriage is a relatively new concept in New Jersey, there have been significantly fewer same-sex divorces in the state and, therefore, case law addressing the award of alimony and equitable distribution in same-sex divorces are in infancy and not yet developed.

N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b) provides for different forms of alimony and requires the court to consider a variety of factors, one of which is the duration of the marriage, in awarding alimony to one party. However, this is the exact scenario in which same-sex couples are more disadvantaged then heterosexual couples because they only received the right to marry.

Consider a hypothetical situation in which a couple is divorcing in 2015. They have been together as if they were a married couple since 2008, but were only officially married in 2014. How should the court address the “length” of the couple’s marriage? In reality, they have only been married for a year, but the relationship itself has lasted much longer. If the court took the “length of marriage” factor literally, construing it from the day of actual marriage (one year ago), the dependent spouse could be awarded a comparatively minimal amount of alimony, considering the relationship has existed longer than just one year. The dependent spouse could potentially argue that they should be awarded a greater alimony award because the court should consider the fact that they were not legally allowed to get married and this is why the marriage is technically so short. Again, same-sex marriage and thus, same-sex divorce, is in its infancy in the Garden State, so it is impossible to know precisely how a court will rule in a scenario like this.

Another issue is cohabitation. Same-sex couples in New Jersey have had no other option but to live together without legal recognition. While there have not been cases that have addressed pre-marital cohabitation in regards to same-sex couples, this issue has been addressed for the purposes of alimony as it relates to heterosexual couples. In McGee v. McGee, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division held that the “extent of actual economic dependency, not one’s status as a spouse, must determine the duration of support.” Therefore, because pre-marital cohabitation may be considered for the purposes of alimony in an opposite-sex divorce, it is likely that such cohabitation, especially for individuals who could not get married, will be a factor in same-sex divorces.

The argument regarding the “length” of a same-sex marriage in New Jersey is further complicated by the fact that civil unions have existed in New Jersey since 2007. In Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the State must provide the same rights and benefits of marriage to committed same-sex couples that were given to opposite-sex couples. The reason why this complicates the equitable distribution of assets and the award of alimony in same-sex marriages is because it weakens the dependent spouse’s argument that the marriage would have been longer had New Jersey permitted same-sex marriage to be performed. The supporting spouse could argue that marriage-like status (civil union) was available to the couple and they did not take advantage of the civil union because they did not have a desire to and, therefore, the “length of marriage” should be calculated from the date of the actual marriage, rather than the beginning of the relationship.

Just like the calculation of alimony, the equitable distribution of assets attained while in a same-sex relationship is also analyzed considering a factor of “length of marriage.”

Overall, alimony and equitable distribution in same-sex marriages is new territory in New Jersey. Because there is no case law on point explaining whether same-sex marriages will be calculated based on the length of the relationship, or the definite day of marriage, careful review of the specific facts of each case will be necessary to accomplish and fair and reasonable outcome for the divorcing parties. That is why it is recommended that you speak with an attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.

ARTICLE BY Megan E. Smith of Stark & Stark
COPYRIGHT © 2015, STARK & STARK