On Jan. 17, 2026, in one of his final acts in office, Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation amending the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA).  The amendments expand access to job-protected family leave for New Jersey workers through an employer‑size threshold reduction, shorter eligibility requirements and potential new job‑protection implications tied to New Jersey Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI).

While the NJFLA’s core framework remains intact, these changes broaden coverage to private employers with 15 or more employees, and employee eligibility thresholds—both service time and hours—are reduced.  Most changes take effect July 17, 2026, with employer‑size thresholds phased in through July 17, 2028.

NJFLA Overview

The NJFLA entitles eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job‑protected family leave in a 24‑month period for the following purposes:

• bonding with a child (beginning within a year of birth, adoption or foster care placement);
• caring for a family member or someone who is the equivalent of family with a serious health condition;
• caring for a family member (or equivalent) who is isolated or quarantined because of suspected exposure to a communicable disease during a state of emergency; or
• providing care or treatment for a child whose school or place of care is closed by order of a public official due to an epidemic of a communicable disease or other public health emergency during a state of emergency.

Although NJFLA leave is unpaid, employees may be eligible for partial wage replacement through New Jersey Family Leave Insurance (FLI).  Employees are entitled to reinstatement to the same or an equivalent position upon return from leave, and employers are prohibited from interfering with or retaliating against employees who exercise NJFLA rights.

Key Changes

Lower Employer Size Threshold

Beginning July 17, 2026, NJFLA coverage expands to private employers with 15 or more employees, reducing the threshold from 30.  The threshold will decrease further on a phased basis: 1) July 17, 2027: 10 or more employees, and 2) July 17, 2028: 5 or more employees.  New Jersey employees working for state or local government agencies of any size remain covered by the NJFLA.

Reduced Employee Eligibility Requirements

The amendments reduce the employee length-of-service requirement for leave eligibility from 12 months to 3 months and the hours worked requirement from 1,000 hours to 250 hours in the preceding 12 months.

Interplay with FMLA, Family Leave Insurance, and Temporary Disability Insurance

Employees who are eligible for New Jersey Earned Sick Leave and TDI or FLI benefits may elect the order in which they use those benefits.  They may not use earned sick leave at the same time as TDI or FLI.  NJFLA leave may run concurrently with leave under the FMLA, where applicable.  However, unlike the FMLA, the NJFLA does not provide leave for an employee’s own serious health condition.

What New Jersey Employers Should Do Now

Employers should confirm whether they will meet the phased employer‑size thresholds in 2026–2028, therefore expanding NJFLA coverage to their employees.

Employers should also review and revise their existing leave policies to reflect the amendments by the effective date.  

In further preparation for compliance, employers should consider providing training to supervisors, managers and/or human resources professionals that are responsible for attendance enforcement within their organizations.  This will mitigate the risk of non-compliance, including retaliation claims, due to any misunderstandings of employees’ rights and protections under the NJFLA. 

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights is expected to issue updated guidance closer to the effective date.  Employers should monitor developments closely.

Employers are encouraged to consult with counsel to understand how these changes affect their operations and to ensure policies are both compliant and strategically aligned.  If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Sam Dobre, Mallory Campbell, Rachel Kreutzer or any attorney in Bond’s labor and employment practice or the attorney at the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

One of the challenging aspects of managing FMLA leaves, particularly intermittent leaves, is determining whether a certain absence is appropriately treated as a covered FMLA leave. In many such circumstances, if the absence is not within the protection of the FMLA, it may be unauthorized and subject the employee to discipline, or even discharge, under the employer’s attendance policy or otherwise. In these situations, employers properly consider the FMLA Certification from the employee’s health care provider which, in the case of intermittent leaves, should include the following information:

Due to the [employee’s medical] condition, it (was/is/will be) medically necessary for the employee to be absent from work on an intermittent basis (periodically), including for any episodes of incapacity i.e., episodic flare-ups. Provide your best estimate of how often (frequency) and how long (duration) the episodes of incapacity will likely last.

Over the next 6 months, episodes of incapacity are estimated to occur ____ times per (day/week/month) and are likely to last approximately ____ (hours/days) per episode.

So, for example, a health care provider may report that the employee will experience flare-ups from his medical condition 4 times in 6 months with each flare-up lasting 2 days per episode. A recent appeals court ruling cautions employers that such a specific certification is not necessarily controlling in the determination of whether a particular absence (e.g., the fifth or sixth episode within 6 months) is a covered FMLA absence.

Davis v. Illinois Department of Human Resources involved a pregnant employee who, in 2017, provided an FMLA medical certification advising her employer that her pregnancy was “high-risk” and authorized intermittent leave for frequent medical appointments, but stated that her condition would not cause episodic flare-ups requiring leave. The employee was subsequently terminated under the employer’s attendance policy with the final unexcused absence being due to morning sickness related to her pregnancy, which the employer concluded was not authorized FMLA leave based on the medical certification she had presented. The district court granted the employer summary judgment dismissing the FMLA claim.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and sent the case back for a jury trial. We need to look beyond the pregnancy aspects of this case to understand the significance of the holding.^[1] The employer and the district court focused on the medical certification and the fact that the absence at issue was not covered by that certification. However, the appeals court held that “an employee’s entitlement to FMLA leave is not strictly bound by the precise parameters laid out in the medical certification.” Instead, the employer is charged, under the FMLA, with making a reasonable determination based on all of the information available to it. In Davis, for example, the court relied on the fact that the employer first provided the FMLA paperwork to the employee following an absence due to morning sickness as evidence that a jury might reasonably conclude that such absences were entitled to FMLA protection.

In making the determination of whether an absence is covered by the FMLA, employers must recognize that the medical certification only represents the health care provider’s “best estimate” of the frequency and duration of the flare-ups that could cause future intermittent absences. Employers should consider whether the absence in question was “not so far in excess” of the frequency or duration stated in the certification so as to retain FMLA protection.

The Davis court also highlighted the employers’ obligation, under the FMLA regulations, to notify the employee in writing if his/her medical certification is incomplete or insufficient and what additional information is required. In Davis, given the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s morning sickness, a jury could find that this obligation was triggered when the certification failed to mention the need for intermittent leave on this basis.

Managing intermittent FMLA leaves is a complex and often difficult responsibility for employers. This function requires a holistic, reasoned and reasonable assessment process to minimize potential legal risks, including lengthy (8 years(!) and counting in Davis) and costly litigation.

If you have any questions, please contact Thomas G. Eron, any attorney in the firm’s labor and employment practice or the Bond attorney with whom you have regular contact.

^[1] Not only is morning sickness a recognized symptom of pregnancy, but the FMLA regulations expressly identify morning sickness as a condition associated with pregnancy that does not require treatment from a health care provider to qualify as an FMLA serious health condition. 29 C.F.R. §825.115(f).

Today, an employee shares joyous news and says, “I’m expecting and due in 20 weeks!” You respond with congratulations, but then start thinking about all the new pregnancy-related legal protections you must comply with. Look no further, here are some highlights on what to expect when your employee is expecting…and beyond.

Read More >> What to Expect When Your Employee is Expecting…and Beyond!

In connection with Mental Health Awareness Month, the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) has sought to assist employers in better understanding how to comply with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as it relates to mental health conditions. Accordingly, on May 25, 2022, the USDOL issued new guidance (Guidance) and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on providing FMLA leave to employees to address their own mental health conditions or to care for a covered family member with a mental health condition.

Read More >> New Guidance from U.S. DOL on FMLA Leave for Mental Health Conditions

PFL Expanded to Include Siblings

On Nov. 1, 2021, Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill into law amending the definition of family member for purposes of the New York Paid Family Leave Benefits Law (PFL) to include biological or adopted siblings, half-siblings and step-siblings. This amendment takes effect on Jan. 1, 2023. Currently, family members for purposes of PFL include a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, spouse and domestic partner. 

Read More >> Changes to New York Paid Family Leave

On April 1, 2020, the Department of Labor (DOL) published the first regulations on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). As a reminder, the FFRCA became effective on April 1 as well, and provides for Emergency Family and Medical Leave (EFMLA) and Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSL). Both laws apply to private employers with fewer than 500 employees, as well as some public employers. 

Read More >> Department of Labor Issues Temporary Regulations on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

On March 18, 2020, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was enacted.  The statute left many questions regarding its implementation and administration unanswered.  Over the past several days, the U.S. Department of Labor (the “DOL”) has been publishing questions and answers addressing some of these unanswered questions.  Here is a summary of some of the key information provided by the DOL.

Read More >> U.S. Department of Labor Issues Questions and Answers Regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

As part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which was signed by President Trump on March 18, Congress enacted the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.  Both of these enactments impose significant new obligations on employers.  Here is a summary of what employers need to know.

Read More >> The Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act: A Summary for Employers

On March 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America.  In that decision, the Court held that the facts (when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff) could lead a jury to conclude that the Culinary Institute of America’s Director of Human Resources was individually liable for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act. The plaintiff, Cathy Graziadio, was employed at the Culinary Institute as a Payroll Administrator.  On June 6, 2012, Graziadio’s son was hospitalized due to issues related to Type I diabetes.  Graziadio immediately informed her supervisor that she needed to take leave to care for him.  Graziadio completed the necessary FMLA paperwork and submitted medical documentation supporting her need for leave.  Only a few weeks later, Graziadio’s other son fractured his leg playing basketball and underwent surgery.  Graziadio again notified her supervisor that she needed leave to care for her other son and expected to return to work, at least part time, by the week of July 9. On July 9, Graziadio’s supervisor asked for an update on Graziadio’s return to work and Graziadio responded that she needed a reduced, three-day week schedule until mid-to-late August and could return July 12 if that schedule was approved.  Graziadio asked whether the Culinary Institute required any further documentation from her.  At that point, Graziadio’s supervisor contacted the Director of Human Resources regarding Graziadio’s request.  Despite several calls and e-mails from Graziadio, the Director of Human Resources did not respond until July 17.  Over the next several weeks, Graziadio and the Director of Human Resources corresponded regarding Graziadio’s need for continued leave, alleged deficiencies in her FMLA documentation, and her expected return to work date. On September 11, 2012, the Director of Human Resources sent Graziadio a letter notifying her that she had been terminated for abandoning her position.  After being terminated, Graziadio commenced an action against the Culinary Institute, her supervisor, and the Director of Human Resources alleging interference with her FMLA leave and retaliation for taking FMLA leave.  The District Court granted summary judgment to the Culinary Institute and the individual defendants, but the Second Circuit reversed that decision. Under the FMLA, an individual may be held liable if he or she is considered an “employer,” defined as “any person who acts, directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer.”  In examining this standard, the Second Circuit applied the economic realities test – which courts apply to determine who may be considered an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Under this test, the Court must look to whether the individual “possessed the power to control the worker in question.”  The factors include whether the individual:  (1) had the power to hire and fire employees; (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment; (3) determined the rate and method of payment; and (4) maintained employment records.  In the context of the FMLA, courts look to whether the individual “controlled in whole or in part plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA.” In the Graziadio case, the Second Circuit held that the Director of Human Resources “appears to have played an important role in the decision to fire Graziadio” and “under the totality of the circumstances, [the Director of Human Resources] exercised sufficient control over Graziadio’s employment to be subject to liability under the FMLA."  Accordingly, unless the parties reach a settlement, the case will proceed to trial with both the Culinary Institute and its Director of Human Resources as defendants. This case stands as a stark reminder to human resource professionals involved in making decisions related to employee FMLA requests to proceed with caution and to strictly comply with the requirements of the FMLA when processing requests for leave.  If there is any doubt regarding the appropriate course of action, human resource professionals should consult with counsel.

Employers are likely well aware of the conditions that must be satisfied before an employee can be deemed eligible for leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”):

• the employee has worked for the employer for at least 12 months;
• the employee has worked 1,250 hours in the 12 months preceding the leave request; and
• the employer has 50 or more employees at, or within 75 miles of, the employee’s workplace -- the so-called “50/75” requirement

If one of these conditions is not satisfied, an employer cannot later be held liable for any FMLA-related claims brought by an employee, right?  Not so fast!  Although determining whether these conditions are met is typically the simplest step in the FMLA certification process, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reminded employers of the headaches they may face if they are not careful in notifying their employees of these conditions. On January 26, 2015, the Sixth Circuit decided Tilley v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission.  Tilley was employed by the Road Commission, which did not meet the 50/75 requirement.  The Road Commission’s personnel manual contained the following statement regarding an employee’s eligibility to apply for FMLA benefits:  "Employees covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act are full-time employees who have worked for the Road Commission and accumulated 1,250 work hours in the previous 12 months." On August 1, 2011, Tilley began experiencing symptoms that made him fear that he was suffering a heart attack.  He was taken to the hospital, admitted for observation, and discharged the next day.  After his discharge, Tilley’s wife informed the Road Commission that Tilley would not be able to return to work until at least August 5. On August 9, a Road Commission representative sent Tilley FMLA paperwork that informed him that he was “eligible for FMLA leave.”  At no time was Tilley informed that the Road Commission did not meet the 50/75 requirement, or that such a requirement even existed.  On August 12, the Road Commission terminated Tilley’s employment, claiming that the reason for his termination was his failure to timely submit certain work assignments. Tilley filed suit, claiming that the Road Commission interfered with his right to FMLA leave and retaliated against him for taking such leave.  The Sixth Circuit agreed with the Road Commission that Tilley was not technically an “eligible employee” under FMLA, but concluded that Tilley’s case could continue because there was a dispute as to whether the Road Commission was “equitably estopped” from denying that Tilley was an eligible employee. The Court explained that “in certain circumstances equitable estoppel applies to employer statements regarding an employee’s FMLA eligibility, preventing the employer from raising non-eligibility as a defense.”  In order to prevail on such an “equitable estoppel” argument, an employee must show a definite misrepresentation by the employer, a reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation, and a resulting detriment to the employee who reasonably relied on the misrepresentation.  The Court found that Tilley presented sufficient evidence on all three elements to allow his case to continue. As to the first element, the Court held that the Road Commission’s personnel manual contained a “clear misrepresentation” as to Tilley’s eligibility to apply for FMLA benefits.  Specifically, the manual contained an “unambiguous and unqualified statement” that Tilley was covered by FMLA and was eligible to apply for FMLA benefits if he worked 1,250 hours in the previous 12 months, but it failed to note that the 50/75 requirement must also be satisfied.  Next, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence that Tilley relied upon the eligibility statement in the manual, which was sufficient to satisfy the second element.  Finally, as to the third element, the Court held that Tilley suffered a detriment as a result of his reliance on the eligibility statement in the manual since he was fired in part because he missed a deadline that he claims he would not have missed but for his reliance on the manual.  Therefore, because Tilley raised questions of fact regarding all elements of an equitable estoppel claim, the Court permitted Tilley’s FMLA claims to move forward. The takeaway from this decision is straightforward:  employers should immediately review their personnel manuals and/or FMLA policies to ensure that they are well-drafted and that all eligibility conditions for FMLA leave are adequately explained.  A poorly drafted or incomplete FMLA policy could result in an employer being in a situation similar to the Road Commission -- potentially being liable for an FMLA claim even when the employee making the claim is not even technically eligible for FMLA leave!

The U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") today announced a change to the definition of spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").  Under this new rule, which will be published later this week (on February 25, 2015), an employee in a legal same-sex marriage will be entitled to use FMLA leave to care for a same-sex spouse regardless of where the employee lives.  The DOL initially proposed the rule on June 20, 2014. This change was triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in U.S. v. Windsor.  In Windsor, the Court ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") was unconstitutional.  Prior to Windsor, and consistent with DOMA, the FMLA defined spouse as a marriage between a man and a woman.  This meant that same-sex married couples could not use FMLA leave to care for each other.  Immediately following Windsor, the DOL announced that an employee could take FMLA leave to care for a same-sex spouse, but only if the employee resided in a state that recognized same-sex marriage (i.e., a “state of residence” approach).  This interpretation meant that a category of same-sex spouses were still unable to use the protections of the FMLA:  those who married in a state recognizing same-sex marriage, but who lived in a state that did not. This latest rule change, which takes effect on March 27, 2015, shifts to a “place of celebration" approach and ensures that same-sex spouses have the same rights as all spouses to exercise FMLA rights.  In other words, as long as the employee is legally married, and regardless of the legal status of same-sex marriage in the state the employee now resides, the employee can take FMLA leave:

• to care for a same-sex spouse with a serious health condition;
• to care for a stepchild who is the child of a same-sex spouse;
• to care for a stepparent who is the same-sex spouse of the employee’s parent;
• due to a qualifying exigency related to the same-sex spouse’s covered military service; or
• to care for a covered servicemember who is a same-sex spouse.

Over the past few months, the media has reported extensively about several incidents of domestic violence involving professional athletes.  While these high-profile cases generate huge attention, it is important to remember that domestic violence is a problem of epidemic proportion.  The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men have experienced physical or sexual violence or stalking by an intimate partner.  Only a small fraction of these cases involve millionaire athletes. Whether it is obvious or not, domestic violence impacts workplaces across the United States on a daily basis.  When this happens, an employer is often left struggling with the question of how – if at all – it should acknowledge and react to an employee’s sensitive and highly personal situation.  While the nature of the problem makes it impossible to predict every issue that might arise, the following questions are frequently asked by employers when domestic violence affects their workplace. Question:  Do any job protections exist for domestic violence victims? Answer:  Yes.  In several states, including New York, domestic violence victim status is a protected category, meaning that an employer cannot take adverse job actions against an individual on that basis.  While federal law does not expressly provide this same protection, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) makes it unlawful for an employer to treat an employee differently due to sex-based stereotypes, such as the assumption that there will inevitably be “distractions” in the workplace if a female employee is involved in an incident of domestic violence.  This is not to say that domestic violence victims are insulated from employment actions taken for legitimate work deficiencies or other non-discriminatory reasons.  It does mean, however, that an employer will be expected to prove that a challenged action occurred for a non-discriminatory reason. It is also important to remember that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and analogous state laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of covered physical or mental impairments.  Those same laws also require employers to provide disability-related accommodations, which could include modifying certain job responsibilities or employment policies, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship to the business.  Although an incident of domestic violence would not itself implicate these laws, the accompanying physical and emotional harm could constitute a disability resulting in employee coverage. Question:  Is an employer required to provide victims of domestic violence time off from work? Answer:  The New York Penal Law makes it a misdemeanor offense for an employer to penalize the victim of a crime who, after giving advance notice, takes time off from work to appear in court as a witness, consult with a district attorney, or obtain an order of protection.  In addition, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) grants eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to recover or receive treatment for serious health conditions, which could include counseling for any physical or psychological conditions resulting from domestic violence.  The ADA and equivalent state laws may also require that some amount of unpaid leave be offered as a form of reasonable accommodation. An employer would also be expected to grant domestic violence victims time off from work pursuant to internal leave policies if leave is normally available to employees experiencing other types of personal matters. Question:  Is an employer obligated to ensure a safe workplace for domestic violence victims? Answer:  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration considers workplace violence to be an occupational hazard which can be prevented or minimized with appropriate precautions.  Included within the agency’s definition of workplace violence is violence by someone who does not work at a given location, but who has a personal relationship with an employee.  Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s “General Duty Clause,” employers are required to provide a place of employment that is free from recognizable hazards that cause or are likely to cause harm to employees.  An employer that has experienced acts of workplace violence – or is on notice of threats, intimidation, or other indicia to show a potential for workplace violence – is required under the general duty clause to implement feasible abatement measures. Question:  What if my employee is not the victim, but is the person accused or found guilty of engaging in criminal acts often associated with domestic violence? Answer:  New York and many other states make it unlawful for an employer to discipline, discharge, or take other adverse action against an employee who was accused of a crime if the charges have been dropped, dismissed, or otherwise resolved in the employee's favor.  At least in New York, that same protection is not afforded to pending charges, but an employer motivated by mere allegations that an employee has perpetrated a crime could nevertheless find itself defending against claims of discrimination on other grounds.  This includes a claim that the challenged action was the result of an employer policy or practice which adversely impacts one or more groups protected by Title VII, as addressed in recent enforcement guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  If the accused employee belongs to a union, additional protections may be afforded under a collective bargaining agreement provision requiring “just cause” prior to disciplinary action. In regards to criminal convictions, several states restrict an employer’s ability to fire an individual because he or she has been convicted of a crime.  In New York, an employer considering such action must evaluate eight factors, such as the nature of the offense, the time elapsed, the age of the individual when the offense occurred, and any evidence of rehabilitation.  Only after evaluating these factors will an employer be in a sufficient position to determine whether a direct relationship exists between the offense and the job, or whether the person’s employment involves an unreasonable risk to property or safety, either of which would provide a defense to a discrimination claim based on a prior conviction. For either arrests or convictions, an employer should investigate the underlying facts to determine if an individual’s conduct justifies termination or some other employment action.  Failure to do so may hurt the employer’s chances of successfully defending against allegations of discrimination, prevailing at arbitration, or avoiding negligent hiring or retention claims. In sum, employers must become familiar with the various legal obligations that arise when an employee is involved in domestic violence, either as the victim or the accused.  If the employee is known to be suffering the effects of an abusive relationship, the employer should be prepared to grant leave or make other work-related adjustments to facilitate the employee's physical and emotional recovery or participation in the legal process (including obtaining an order of protection).  If the employee is accused or convicted of a violent or threatening act, the employer should determine if the underlying conduct impairs his or her continued employment, recognizing that the law generally disfavors employment actions taken because of an individual’s arrest or conviction record.  In either situation, merely ignoring the problem is never a good strategy.