The district court has once again upheld enforcement of the New Jersey Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights (the “Law”).  The decision comes in response to a follow-up challenge by a coalition of staffing agency industry groups, asserting that the section of the Law requiring temporary workers be paid an amount equal to the average pay and benefits received by similarly situated permanent employees is preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).  For a summary of the Law’s requirements, please see our earlier blog here

As we previously reported, the industry groups initially sought to halt enforcement of the Law in its entirety on constitutional grounds, arguing that the Law violates the dormant Commerce Clause and is state overreach.  A District of New Jersey court denied the groups’ motion for preliminary injunction, and that decision was upheld on appeal by a Third Circuit panel.

Approximately one year after first seeking injunctive relief, the industry groups amended their complaint to assert that Section (7)(b) of the Law is preempted by ERISA and should not be enforced.  Section (7)(b) requires a temporary worker “not be paid less than the average rate of pay and average cost of benefits, or the cash equivalent thereof, of employees of the third party client performing the same or substantially similar work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions for the third party client at the time the temporary laborer is assigned to work at the third party client.”  The groups in turn filed a motion for preliminary injunction on ERISA-preemption grounds before the district court.  

In denying the motion, the court held that the industry groups failed to make the necessary showing of irreparable harm.  The court focused on the groups’ one year delay in pursuing injunctive relief based on ERISA preemption, noting that “how urgently a party has pursued their claims” is relevant to the irreparable harm analysis and pointing out that ERISA preemption has been litigated “for decades.” 

The court also found that granting injunctive relief now would substantially disrupt the status quo.  The court noted that the equal benefits provision has now been in place for over a year and the State has issued proposed regulations under, and already established mechanisms to enforce, the Law.  The court also noted that “many individual [temporary] workers, and their families, have likely made important life decisions in reliance upon continued receipt of these increased wages and benefits [required pursuant to Section (7)(b)].” 

Finally, the court found that it was unclear based on the current record whether the industry groups were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.  Among other reasons cited by the court, it noted that “it is not clear if the Act requires staffing agencies to establish an ERISA-governed benefit plan” such that preemption would likely apply. As a result, the Law’s requirements presently remain in full effect.  Staffing agencies and employers can read more about the proposed regulations for the Law here and should be sure to monitor the NJ Department of Labor & Workforce Development’s website to ensure continued compliance with the Law.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Evandro Gigante Evandro Gigante

Evandro Gigante is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration group and the Hiring & Terminations group. He represents and counsels clients through a variety of labor and employment matters, including allegations of…

Evandro Gigante is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration group and the Hiring & Terminations group. He represents and counsels clients through a variety of labor and employment matters, including allegations of race, gender, national origin, disability and religious discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful discharge, defamation and breach of contract. Evandro also counsels employers through reductions-in-force and advises clients on restrictive covenant issues, such as confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicit agreements.

With a focus on discrimination and harassment matters, Evandro has extensive experience representing clients before federal and state courts. He has tried cases in court and before arbitrators and routinely represents clients before administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as state and local human rights commissions.

Photo of Laura Fant Laura Fant

Laura Fant is a special employment law counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-administrative leader of the Counseling, Training & Pay Equity Practice Group. Her practice is dedicated to providing clients with practical solutions to common (and uncommon) employment concerns…

Laura Fant is a special employment law counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-administrative leader of the Counseling, Training & Pay Equity Practice Group. Her practice is dedicated to providing clients with practical solutions to common (and uncommon) employment concerns, with a focus on legal compliance, risk management and mitigation strategies, and workplace culture considerations.

Laura regularly counsels clients across numerous industries on a wide variety of employment matters involving recruitment and hiring, employee leave and reasonable accommodation issues, performance management, and termination of employment . She also advises on preparing, implementing and enforcing employment and separation agreements, employee handbooks and company policies, as well as provides training on topics including discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Laura is a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Law and the Workplace blog and The Proskauer Brief podcast.