A couple of months ago we wrote about A Victory for Elizabeth Workers, where we shared the news that Elizabeth had become the 10th municipality in New Jersey to provide paid sick leave to its employees. As Elizabeth’s neighborhood law firm, we at Mintz & Geftic were happy to see the local residents rally together for such a great cause. We are now less than two weeks away from the date of March 2nd, when this law will go into effect and the hardworking men and women of Elizabeth will finally have access to the benefits that they worked so hard to obtain. However,…
New Jersey
As initial forecasts are pointing to the first major winter storm of 2016 hitting our region later this week, it’s a good time to separate facts from fiction when it comes to winter driving. While taking it slow and putting down the cellphone will obviously help drivers avoid motor-vehicle accidents regardless of the road conditions, there are many myths out there when it comes to icy/snowy conditions. The list below was put together by iceroadsafety.com and can be found in its entirety here.
$4.2 Million settlement of a class action against American Traffic Systems, Inc. and 18 New Jersey municipalities alleging a failure to comply with New Jersey laws governing red light cameras. (Bryan H. Mintz, with co-counsel, District of New Jersey, 2013).
This week, in Maida v. Kuskin, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed an important aspect of civil reservations.
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided last week in the case of Renner v. AT&T that a Workers’ Compensation claimant is not entitled to compensation for a cardiovascular injury, disease or death, unless the claimant can show that the cardiovascular injury resulted from a work effort or strain involving a substantial condition or event. This case has broad ramifications for New Jersey workers who suffer injuries such as heart attacks or pulmonary embolisms at work and seek workers’ compensation benefits for those injuries.
In the recent case of Hersh v. County of Morris, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered the issues of whether a plaintiff who was injured while crossing a public street as she walked from a private garage, where she had employer-paid parking, to her office a few blocks away was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.