At the Forefront of Employment Law

From immigration and DEI initiatives, to pay transparency and worker classification, New Jersey lawyers study the issues and advise clients in a changing world.

By Anthony Birritteri, Editor-in-Chief On Aug 6, 2025

In this installment of New Jersey Business Magazine’s continuing Business Roundtable Series, conducted in conjunction with the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, we ask attorneys specializing in employment law a series of questions on issues trending in the workplace.

Meet our 5 Panelists

Vincent P. Browne

As director of the Employment & Labor Law practice group at Gibbons P.C., Browne focuses on all aspects of employment law compliance and investigations. He has experience in employee separation programs, anti-discrimination and whistleblowing laws, wage and hour compliance, independent contractor designation, compensation, corporate investigations, litigation, and alternative dispute resolution.

John V. Kelly III

At Norris McLaughlin, Kelly advises clients on Title VII, Title IX, ADA, ADEA, EO, EEO, NJLAD, NYHRL, wage and hour laws, fraud, and other local, state, and federal employment laws. He represents senior-level employees of both public and private companies; counsels employers in the preparation and negotiation of employment and severance packages; and designs HR compliance programs. 

Scott A. Ohnegian

As chair of Riker Danzig LLP’s Labor & Employment Group, Ohnegian focuses on the representation of management in litigating federal and state employment matters including claims involving allegations of discrimination, whistleblowing, harassment, misappropriation of trade secrets and restrictive covenant claims. He handles matters in state and federal courts as well as before various state and federal agencies.

Melissa A. Salimbene

As chair of Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi’s (CSG) Employment Law Group, Salimbene represents employers of all sizes before state and federal courts and administrative agencies in all aspects of employment litigation. She also brings and defends restrictive covenant claims involving trade secrets, confidentiality agreements, non-compete agreements and other post-employment obligations. 

Michael A. Shadiack 

As a partner and chair of the Labor & Employment Law Group at Connell Foley LLP, Shadiack has devoted his legal career to practicing employment law. He provides employers with pro-active and preventative counseling on personnel issues to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. He also prepares comprehensive employment agreements and employee handbooks tailored to employers’ needs.

---

How are you advising clients in dealing with President Trump’s executive orders to roll back diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI) initiatives?

Salimbene: There’s a desire for business clients to continue to have DEI in the workplace in a legal way. Pro bono clients don’t want to lose their federal funding, but they still want to lean into DEI and do it in accordance with the executive orders. The trouble is that the executive orders are fuzzy. So, we’ve been advising clients the way we have been guiding them all along. It has always been that you must implement [DEI] in a legal way. [For example], you can’t favor someone based on a protected category. 

The one thing that’s new is looking at our clients’ public-facing communications, materials, and websites, etc. It’s about using “this word instead of that word.” It’s a level of detail we never had to [deal with], but now we are giving that advice.

Kelly: Some clients do rely on federal grant funding, so the EOs change the landscape on how they handle that situation. Language is important. Instead of calling something a DEI initiative, maybe call it a cultural initiative – or something like that – to pivot around some of the EOs. 

Browne: President Trump’s executive orders have turned DEI initiatives on their heads in terms of how companies are approaching their policies and programs. A lot of DEI programs, especially at larger companies, are almost grassroots initiatives that have been created by different departments within a company without a lot of oversight. We are encouraging clients to look at those programs, make sure they know what’s under the hood, and then create some sort of governance structure so that any new program that’s being considered or implemented has the appropriate approval by the legal and the human resources departments before they are implemented. 

With the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, are you advising employers to do anything different when vetting new hires? 

Ohnegian: Employers are always required to have I-9 forms for each of their employees. [The current environment] makes it easier for us to tell clients to make sure they have completed the forms. 

We probably all have a couple of clients who are in industries that frequently employ people who may not be legally entitled to work in the US. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to independently vet whether “Jim Smith” is really “Jim Smith.” If an employee presents the matching documents with a social security number or immigration form, as long as it’s not an obvious fake … [companies] will rely on that documentation, which they reasonably believe is legitimate.

Shadiack: If hired, a Form I-9 must be completed (with Section 1 completed no later than the end of the first day of employment), and they must provide either a List A document or a combination of a List B & C documents to satisfy the I-9 requirement. 

All completed 1-9s must be maintained in one centralized file (whether in paper or electronic form) by the employer, and not in each employee’s personnel file. Also, maintaining a centralized file reduces security risks, and allows the employer to quickly access the documentation in the event an Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer should come to the place of business. 

What should the employer do if ICE shows up at their door?

Salimbene: We’ve been preparing memos for our clients with step-by-step guidance concerning their rights. Many think that if ICE shows up, they have to let them in and give them all the information. 

Our memo covers things like having an ICE response team and making sure that the forward facing people – your front desk staff, security staff – are part of that team; having a law firm on retainer so you can call them and say “ICE is here;” [marking out] private locations because [ICE] can’t just walk into a private part of a company without a warrant to do so. For example, parking lots and upfront lobbies are free rein, but [ICE can’t] go further; tell your employees they have the right to remain silent and that they don’t necessarily need to answer questions. However, you don’t want to look like you’re directing that non-communication. You’re just advising them that employees do have that right. 

Shadiack: ICE may not enter a private area of the business without the employer’s permission or a judicial warrant, which is signed by a federal or state court judge and identifies the employer and business address. The manager should review the warrant and follow the agent(s) around the facility to ensure the agent(s) do not search areas outside what is listed in the warrant. An employer is not required to respond to an administrative warrant, even if the administrative warrant identifies an employee who is currently working on the premises. If ICE agents are there without a warrant and are interfering with the business’s operations, they can be asked to leave.

The manager can take notes or make a video recording of the inspection. They should note any items that are seized and ask if copies can be made before they are taken off premises. If the seizure of any items will interfere with the company’s ability to conduct business, the manager can inform the agent(s) and request that they not take the items, but image/copy the items instead (including any electronic devices).

Kelly: If the first time you’re thinking about all of this is when ICE shows up, that’s a problem. You should consult your attorney. Have a plan in place. Know what your rights are. Know what your employees’ rights are. An important thing to remember is that these are law enforcement agencies. You could find yourself in some hot water and felony charges could be brought against you.

What are some of your concerns with the new pay transparency law?

Shadiack: The state’s new Pay Transparency Act requires employers with at least 10 employees in the state to include salary ranges and a general summary of benefits in all job postings and promotional opportunities. If a covered employer advertises a position (internally or externally) that would qualify as a promotion for an existing employee, the employer must make “reasonable efforts” to announce, post, or otherwise make known the promotion opportunity to all current employees in the affected department(s) prior to making any promotion decision. Promotions that are based on years of experience or performance are excluded from this provision. Employers are also exempt from these requirements if they make a promotion decision on an “emergent basis due to an unforeseen event.” The Act broadly defines a promotion as “a change in job title and an increase in compensation.” 

A concern we hear from employers is that the state law does not override more detailed local laws, like Jersey City’s, which has stricter requirements. However, employers are not always aware of such local laws, so they could unknowingly violate same. 

Salimbene: It’s not hard to comply with the law. What’s difficult is the impact it has, particularly on current employees. I’ve seen some backlash where there’s a posting and then I get a call from a client who says, “I have an employee who’s been with the company for 10 years. They saw the job posting for the position they are in and saw that they are at the lowest end of that pay scale. They want more money.” 

So, the public posting of a pay range is going to impact current employees, especially when you know some of the ranges are super broad. However, sometimes it’s a good thing because it causes a client to conduct a pay equity audit. So, there are pros and cons.

Browne: [The law] also requires the employer to have some hard conversations that maybe they haven’t been having. Why is an employee at the low end? Maybe their performance hasn’t been up to snuff, and employers are sometimes reluctant to give that feedback. Also, if you have somebody that’s been in a traditionally protected group at the end of the pay scale, and employers have not been having those conversations about whether it’s been related to performance or other reasons, that person may come to the conclusion that [the pay difference] is because of their race or gender and that can increase discrimination claims. … It really creates a burden on the internal HR recruiting team to get it right. 

What are your thoughts on the NJDOL’s proposed rule to make many independent workers
W-2 employees?

Salimbene: I don’t think the proposed rule changes [anything] that much. The intent of the rule is to provide some clarity. Right now, for our business clients, when they’re considering whether someone’s going to be an employee or an independent contractor, we apply the ABC test.

However, it’s a little fuzzy, and it’s a balancing of factors. As lawyers, we have to explain the risks to our clients, and there’s always risk when you’re making someone an independent contractor … that the Department of Labor is going to disagree. 

Browne: The rule picks through a lot of the case law in some ways and makes it harder for employers to satisfy the independent contractor test. 

It becomes a bigger challenge for employers in regulated industries that have to exercise a certain degree of control and supervision over the independent contractor to satisfy their regulatory or legal obligations. 

Ohnegian: The real exposure is to businesses that have been classifying a major percentage of their workforce as independent contractors. Those are also the businesses that the plaintiff’s attorneys are going to go after. 

What other areas of employment law are trending right now? 

Kelly: Technology issues are taking a great leap forward. We are moving towards AI and there’s a lot of untested law and legal theories that are going to be tested in the courts. The states and federal government are developing laws regarding AI. It will be interesting these next couple of years to see how this area gets settled by law.

To access more business news, visit NJB News Now.

Related Articles: