New Jersey Assembly Bill A3670

New Jersey 2024-2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/24
• Refer: 2/12/24

Caption

Provides certain employment protections for working parents due to school closure during state of emergency and public health emergency.

Impact

The bill directly impacts existing labor laws by supplementing New Jersey's Title 34, aimed at enhancing protections for employees during extraordinary circumstances. By introducing a rebuttable presumption that employees who have previously worked remotely can continue to do so, the legislation empowers families to balance work with educational responsibilities. Employers would be required to maintain flexible working conditions for parents, thereby promoting family stability during critical times. Failure to comply with the provisions of the bill could lead to significant civil penalties for offending employers, escalating with repeated violations.

Summary

Assembly Bill A3670, introduced in the New Jersey legislature, aims to establish employment protections for parents or guardians of school-aged children during public health emergencies that result in school closures. The bill stipulates that it would be considered unlawful for employers to mandate the physical presence of employees who can perform their jobs remotely while schools are closed due to a declared state of emergency. This law is particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and similar future emergencies requiring virtual or remote instruction.

Contention

One notable contention surrounding bill A3670 relates to concerns over business operations and the potential burden on employers. Opponents may argue that the legislation could impose undue strain on businesses that require a certain level of in-person engagement for operational efficiency. Furthermore, the bill's provisions also intersect with issues of discrimination, as it highlights the disproportionate impact of remote learning requirements on women and minority parents. Critics from the business community might express apprehension regarding the interpretation of 'undue hardship', potentially leading to disputes about compliance and operational adaptability.