BAR REPORT - Capitol Report
Legislature addresses expungement procedures and workers' comp supplemental benefits
June 17, 2019 at 11:45 AM
4 minute read
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
While budget showdown looms, key legislation moves through
While leaders fight it out over dark money and a millionaire's tax, bills revising expungement procedures and workers' compensation supplemental benefits now await the governor's signature. The NJSBA supported measures to revise expungement procedures and withdrew opposition on the workers' compensation bill.
The “Cunningham Cleanse,” as the expungement bill has been christened, was voted out of the Assembly last week with a vote of 50-15-6. S-3205 (Cunningham) boasts a streamlined expungement process for certain criminal convictions by broadening a person's eligibility. The bill focuses on the treatment of various marijuana offenses, in anticipation of a vote on expanded marijuana laws in New Jersey. The bill would also create an expedited process for such expungements.
“If we are ever going to have a justice system truly based on rehabilitation, those who have been convicted must have a fair shot at life after having served their debt to society,” said Senator Sandra Cunningham.
The NJSBA supported an expungement process within the context of the recreational marijuana bill earlier this year, and remains committed to working with the Legislature to streamline and address any future concerns as the process is implemented, if enacted into law.
S-1967 (Sweeney) also awaits the governor's signature after the Assembly voted to concur with the governor's recommendations when he conditionally vetoed the bill last month. The revised bill extends the weekly supplemental benefits paid to those who were injured or to the surviving dependents of those who died before Jan. 1, 1980, to also include any public safety worker who suffers a work-related total disability and to the surviving dependents of any public safety worker who dies because of a workplace injury after Dec. 31, 1979.
The governor sent the bill back with recommendations to address the interplay with the Federal Social Security Act, which could potentially limit a person's recovery so that he or she is worse off than if the bill were not enacted. New Jersey is one of a few 'reverse offset' states, as defined under the Federal Social Security Act. That means an individual's workers' compensation benefit—and not the Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefit—will be reduced when necessary to preclude a combined payment in excess of the 80 percent limit set by federal law. Under federal law, a permanently disabled individual under retirement age is prohibited from receiving combined workers' compensation and SSDI benefits of more than 80 percent of the individual's wages prior to becoming totally disabled. In other states, SSDI benefits are reduced by the amount an injured worker is receiving through the state's workers' compensation benefits.
The last three budgets proposed by President Donald Trump have called for the elimination of the reverse offset laws. “If New Jersey were to lose its reverse offset status, the fiscal repercussions on the affected State funds could significantly harm the disabled workers and their families who rely upon these benefits,” said Governor Murphy in his conditional veto message. Noting that if New Jersey lost its reverse offset status, many disabled public safety workers would not actually see an increase in their total compensation from the supplemental benefits contained in this bill, Murphy recommended amendments that would limit supplemental benefit payments to the dependents of public safety workers killed in the line of duty. These benefits are not governed by the federal statutory provisions governing the reverse offset and, therefore, those recipients would “stand to realize an immediate and substantial benefit from this pension offset required under current law.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'I've Worked Until 2 in the Morning': Lawyers Brace for Trump Policy
6 minute readGOP Trifecta in Washington Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
Lowenstein Hires Ex-FTX US General Counsel Ryne Miller to Lead Its Commodities, Derivatives Practice
3 minute readMany Lawyers Are Reeling From Election Results, but Leaders Are Staying Mum
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250