When the job market is as tight as it is now, few workers are willing to make waves and risk losing their employment. But should workers risk their health and safety or that of their co-workers or the public just to keep a job? There are a number of laws, both on the state and federal level, intended to keep New Jersey workers safe in the workplace and free from reprisal should they refuse to perform an unsafe job.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) are some of the laws that protect workers on the federal level. In New Jersey, workers also have the protection of the New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and the Public Employees’ Occupational Safety and Health Act. In additional, there are a number of industry-specific statutes that also aim to protect workers under certain circumstances. (1)

Perhaps the most recognized of these laws is OSHA. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (also called OSHA) protects the employee’s right to a safe workplace by hearing complaints, performing inspections of workplaces and imposing fines on businesses found to be in violation of safety standards. (1) For example this past spring, OSHA found a West Trenton ball-bearings manufacturer guilty of 21 safety violations and fined the company $88,200. (2) Separately a New Jersey general contractor and five subcontractors were fined a total of $95,470 for 20 health and safety violations. OSHA does not, however, grant rights to employees to overtly refuse an unsafe work assignment. (3)

As rising temperatures lure more people to the water, boaters are reminded to use caution and stay safe.

In under one month, three fatal boating accidents occurred in the waters surrounding New Jersey:

*A Lacey Township man was reported missing and presumed dead after being knocked from a speedboat, apparently by a wave created by another boat. His friend suffered a fractured arm in the incident. (1)

Reminiscent of the question which came first – the chicken or the egg, New Jersey courts recently had to deal with the dilemma of which contributed more to an Edison woman’s death – her less-than-healthy, personal lifestyle or her sedentary work conditions.

This case rose from a workers’ compensation claim filed by the widower of Cathleen Renner, a long-time employee of AT&T who died in 2007 from a pulmonary embolism. According to court reports, on the night of her death Mrs. Renner worked for more than ten hours at the computer in her home office in order to meet a pressing deadline for work. About an hour later she was dead. (1)

Mrs. Renner’s husband, James, filed a claim for death benefits under the State’s workers’ compensation law. In New Jersey, workers’ compensation insurance pays benefits to employees for illness or injury incurred in connection with their jobs. It also pays benefits to dependents of employees who die as a result of employment-related activities. (2)

Earlier this month the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a divisive ruling that, in effect, allows drivers convicted of driving under the influence to sue the bars that served them. (1)

The split decision (5-2) relates to a 2009 lawsuit filed by Frederick Voss against Tiffany’s Restaurant, Toms River, NJ. According to that suit Mr. Voss, who was driving a motorcycle, was involved in an accident after he had been drinking at the restaurant. Voss, who had a reported blood alcohol level of 0.196, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence. The legal alcohol limit in New Jersey is 0.08. (1)

Although he pleaded guilty to the DUI, Voss sued the owner and driver of the car that hit him, as well as the restaurant for continuing to serve him even though he clearly was intoxicated. An Ocean County Superior Court judge dismissed the actions against the car’s driver and owner citing a 1997 statute that prohibits anyone convicted of drunk driving from suing for damages. The judge, however, allowed the action against the restaurant citing the State’s dram shop laws, which were adopted some ten years earlier. (2)

When a South Jersey woman fell behind on her maintenance fees and her condominium association responded by revoking her privileges to certain amenities, she filed a discrimination complaint. The condo association is now expected to pay $10,000 in settlement of that complaint. (1)

Mary Lou Frisch was in arrears on her monthly maintenance fees since January of 2007. In November 2008, Mays Landing Village Condominium Association suspended Ms. Frisch’s rights to use certain common areas, including the parking lot – hence the problem. (2)

Ms. Frisch suffers from a debilitating lung disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. When she could no longer use the development’s parking lot, she had to park off premises and walk the distance between her car and her condo – sometimes close to a mile. Prior to losing her privileges, Ms. Frisch, who has a handicapped parking permit issued by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, used a handicapped space close to her unit. (2)

Saturday, May 14, the driver of a pickup truck makes a wide turn, loses control of his vehicle and crashes into a motorcycle, killing the 53-year-old woman driving it. The pickup continues traveling in the wrong direction until it crashes into a second motorcycle, also killing that driver, a 47-year-old woman. (1)

Saturday, May 7, a motorcyclist dies after crashing into the back of a car while traveling on the Atlantic City Expressway. (2)

Sunday, May 1, a 60-year-old Fair Lawn man dies as a result of injuries sustained after crashing his motorcycle into a fence at the Essex County Airport. (3)

Did DePuy Orthopaedics, subsidiary of New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson, knowingly sell defective hip implant devices? That’s the basis of a federal class action lawsuit filed in Trenton late last month. (1)

According to the suit, North Jersey Municipal Employee Benefits Fund v. DePuy Orthopaedics, the Warsaw, Ind.,-based unit of J&J knew there were problems with its hip-replacement system but continued to sell the products anyway. (1)

The ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing Platform were intended to correct degenerative conditions of the hip caused by ailments such as osteoarthritis. These devices were marketed as superior, with a longer lifespan and more natural fit. It was stated that patients would require less serious corrective surgery and the devices would wear better. Instead, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received hundreds of complaints about the products from patients across the country. According to these complaints, the implants came loose, dislocated or misaligned. In addition, the friction of metal rubbing against metal produced metal debris that proved harmful to the patients. Among the symptoms experienced were swelling and inflammation, tissue and bone damage and pain. Corrective surgery, which was both painful and expensive, was required to correct the damage. (1)

The State Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court decision by ruling that New Jersey was an appropriate venue for hearing a personal injury lawsuit concerning a South African motor vehicle accident involving U.S. citizens. (1)

The accident, which occurred in September 2006 about 75 miles southwest of Johannesburg, involved three U.S. citizens: David Edmonds, an employee of General Dynamics-Ordinance and Tactical Systems, Inc., and resident of Florida; and two New Jersey residents, Amin Yousef and Crane Robinson, both civilian employees of the U.S. Army. According to reports, Edmonds was driving a rented van in which Yousef and Robinson were passengers, when he allegedly ran a stop sign and crashed into another vehicle. (2)

Robinson required surgery in South Africa as a result of the accident and was later treated for leg and neck injuries when he returned to the U.S. Yousef, who was thrown from the vehicle, suffered severe head trauma. He was treated in South Africa for a month before returning to the U.S., where he continued to receive treatment for brain injuries for years. He is now legally blind, suffers cognitive and speech damages and is confined to a wheelchair. (2)

A Jackson, NJ, teenager filed a lawsuit late last month in Ocean County Superior Court seeking an undivulged amount of damages in connection with a fireworks mishap that left him partially blind. That lawsuit has refueled a long-lived debate over the legality of selling fireworks to residents of states in which their use is illegal. (1)

Last summer, 19-year-old Thomas Eldershaw agreed to help a friend set off fireworks during a July 4th celebration when one of the explosives miss-fired hitting Eldershaw in the face and eye. Eldershaw suffered facial burns and was left partially blinded as a result of this accident. His lawsuit names the seller of the fireworks — Sky King Fireworks of Morrisville, PA, the manufacturer of the fireworks and the friend who purchased the fireworks. (2)

New Jersey is one of a few states that continues to ban all consumer fireworks and allows display fireworks only by permit. As a result, the sale, exposure for sale, distribution, possession and use of fireworks within the State is illegal. (3) The neighboring state of Pennsylvania, however, does allow the sale of fireworks to consumers other than Pennsylvania residents. This has allowed for the establishment of so-called “border stores,” which has long been a contention between the two states. (2)

It is another in a spate of gender discrimination lawsuits filed recently against large corporations: last Monday a class action lawsuit was filed against Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and its parent, Bayer Corp., both U.S. units of Bayer AG, alleging the company has engaged in various discriminatory behaviors against its female employees. (1)

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. Federal Court in Newark on behalf of six former and current employees, claims that the company discriminates against women in terms of salary, job opportunities and family leave. (1)

Specifically, the lawsuit claims Bayer’s female employees receive less compensation than their male peers, are denied promotion opportunities and are offered only opportunities for lower ranking positions. Such actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Family Medical Leave Act, all federal laws; as well as the New Jersey State Family Leave Act and the Law Against Discrimination. (2)

Contact Information