NJ Law Amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.02.18
On April 24, 2018, Governor Phil Murphy signed New Jersey’s equal pay legislation into law. The legislation, known as the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act, amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and expands the categories of individuals who are protected from pay discrimination and imposes stringent requirements and penalties against employers who are found to violate the law.
The New Jersey law is notable and different from laws enacted recently by other states because it prohibits unlawful discrimination in pay or benefits on the basis of membership in any protected class, including those based on race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, affectional or sexual orientation, genetic information, pregnancy, sex, gender identity or expression, disability or atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait of any individual, or liability for service in the armed forces. It also requires that employees receive equal compensation for “substantially similar” work – supplementing in New Jersey the federal requirement that employees be paid the same for “equal work.” Other key provisions include the following:
- Employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay with others or retaliate against those who do so.
- Claimants are entitled to treble damages upon a jury finding of discriminatory compensation.
- Back pay awards may look back six years.
The law takes effect on July 1, 2018. With the implementation of this law, New Jersey joins at least seventeen states – including New York, California, and Pennsylvania – and many localities that have recently amended equal pay laws to make them more employee-friendly. This latest development further underscores the need for employers to conduct a privileged, holistic review of their compensation systems, including privileged analyses of compensation, to ensure compliance with the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
