The New Jersey Department of Labor has clarified through a public announcement that eligible employees may be entitled to job protection while receiving Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) benefits, while recent amendments also expand eligibility under the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Employers should assess how these changes may affect leave administration, staffing and compliance obligations. Read more about these developments and their impact on New Jersey employers.

AI tools offer a multitude of potential benefits in the workplace. They can also create significant legal, privacy, and cybersecurity risk if not properly managed. Adopting an employee AI Acceptable Use Policy can help manage that risk.  

Below are five key reasons why HR professionals and in-house counsel should prioritize the development of an AI Acceptable Use Policy.

  1. Control Which AI Tools Employees May Use

One of the most significant risks accompanying workplace AI adoption is the use of unauthorized, publicly available AI tools by employees to perform work-related tasks. When employees input company information into unapproved AI platforms, organizations may inadvertently expose confidential, proprietary, personal, or regulated data to third parties, creating significant privacy, cybersecurity, and compliance risks.

To mitigate these risks, a clear AI Acceptable Use Policy will identify approved, organization-vetted AI tools and expressly prohibit the use of unauthorized AI applications for business purposes. Requiring employees to use only approved platforms helps ensure that AI solutions undergo appropriate review by legal, information security, privacy, compliance, and IT stakeholders before deployment.

  1. Promote Compliance with Privacy, Intellectual Property, and Employment Laws

Employees’ use of AI tools can create a range of legal and compliance risks if not properly governed. For example, employees may inadvertently upload copyrighted materials, disclose employee personal information or confidential business data, record or monitor individuals without appropriate notice or consent, or rely on AI-generated output that is inaccurate, biased, or discriminatory. These activities can expose employers to potential liability under privacy, intellectual property, employment, and anti-discrimination laws, as well as sector-specific regulatory requirements.

To mitigate these risks, a comprehensive AI Acceptable Use Policy will clearly define both permitted and prohibited uses of AI tools. It will also establish categories of information that may or may not be entered into AI systems, set parameters for the appropriate use of AI-generated content, and require human review of AI outputs before they are relied upon for business decisions. Employers should also consider incorporating requirements for use case risk assessments, approval processes, and ongoing monitoring to help ensure that AI tools are used responsibly, consistently, and in compliance with applicable legal and regulatory obligations.

  1. Prevent Cybersecurity Risks

AI tools can interact with an organization’s systems, business processes, and data assets including, in some cases, confidential, proprietary, or personal information. As with any new technology, the use of an AI tool can introduce additional cybersecurity, privacy, and data governance risks if appropriate safeguards are not in place. For example, AI applications may increase the risk of data leakage, unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, inadequate employee access controls, or security vulnerabilities arising from improper configuration or integration with existing systems.

An AI Acceptable Use Policy will establish clear governance standards governing the acquisition and use of AI technologies by setting forth requirements for the evaluation, approval, and secure use. The policy should reinforce compliance with existing cybersecurity policies and controls.

  1. Reinforce Existing Corporate Policies and Standards of Conduct

Employees’ use of AI tools should be governed by the same standards and expectations that apply to all workplace conduct, including the organization’s Code of Conduct, information security policies, confidentiality obligations, and anti-harassment and equal employment opportunity policies.

Providing employees with clear guidance on acceptable and prohibited uses of AI tools can help mitigate the risk of conduct that creates legal, compliance, or reputational exposure. For example, employers may wish to prohibit the use of AI tools to generate deepfakes or other deceptive synthetic media, impersonate colleagues, customers, or business partners, create discriminatory, harassing, or otherwise inappropriate communications, or engage in unauthorized business activities. Establishing clear guardrails can help reduce the likelihood that AI tools will be used in ways that violate workplace policies or applicable law.

  1. Establish Clear Accountability and AI Governance

Effective AI governance requires more than identifying acceptable uses. An AI Acceptable Use Policy will also promote accountability. In addition to defining expectations for employee conduct, the policy should address the consequences of noncompliance and identify the individuals or functions responsible for overseeing implementation, training, and ongoing compliance.

Assigning clear ownership of AI governance helps ensure that AI-related risks are appropriately managed and that the organization’s use of AI remains aligned with its legal obligations, ethical standards, and business objectives.

Conclusion

HR professionals and in-house counsel play a key role in ensuring that organizations integrate and use AI tools in the workplace in a responsible and consistent manner. A well-crafted policy can serve as a critical governance tool, reducing enterprise risk while enabling employees to leverage AI tools in a secure and compliant manner.

Employers should also consider implementing training programs to educate employees on appropriate use and risks associated with AI tools. Ongoing training and monitoring can help reinforce policy requirements and promote consistent, compliant use of AI tools across the organization.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with questions regarding AI governance, privacy, and cybersecurity in the workplace.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Organizations should consult legal counsel regarding the development of AI governance policies tailored to their specific operations and regulatory obligations.

Takeaways

  • The New Jersey Appellate Division in Sanders held that the state’s cannabis statute allows an aggrieved individual to bring a private lawsuit in a court of law.
  • Employers should ensure their current practices and policies are compliant with the law’s anti-discrimination provisions, which prohibit taking an adverse employment action against an employee or refusing to hire an individual because of their use or non-use of cannabis.

Until the New Jersey Appellate Division’s decision in Sanders v. The Levari Group, d/b/a First Choice Freezer[MS1] , No.  A-2715-23 (May 26, 2026), it was unclear whether an individual could bring a private lawsuit alleging discrimination in violation of the state’s cannabis law, the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Market Modernization Act (CREAMMA). The Appellate Division recently held that individuals who allege to have suffered adverse employment actions because of their use of cannabis could bring a claim of violation of CREAMMA in court.

Notably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in a 2024 decision that CREAMMA did not create a private right of action.

Legislative History

In November 2020, the New Jersey Legislature amended the New Jersey Constitution to legalize recreational cannabis use by individuals aged 21 and over.

On Feb. 22, 2021, the Legislature enacted CREAMMA, which aimed to control and legalize the use of cannabis like the state’s regulation of the use of alcohol. The Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) was created and tasked with regulating the use of cannabis in the state.

CREAMMA also includes anti-discrimination provisions, prohibiting employers from failing to hire, discharging, or otherwise subjecting an individual to an adverse employment action because of the individual’s legal use of cannabis.

Although CREAMMA authorizes the CRC to take enforcement action or impose sanctions on an entity licensed to sell cannabis, the CRC’s regulations do not contain any procedures for enforcement actions against unlicensed individuals or entities.

Sanders Decision

In Sanders, Darlene Sanders alleged that, after accepting a position with the employer, she was required to take a drug test. Her test results were positive for cannabis. When she contacted the HR department to inquire about her start date, they “offered [her] the opportunity to submit to a repeat drug test.” When she failed to take another test, the employer rescinded the employment offer and refused to hire her.

The Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff’s Complaint, finding no evidence the Legislature meant to create a private right for individuals to bring lawsuits to enforce CREAMMA. The plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the lower court decision in a matter of first impression. The court held CREAMMA provides individuals a private right of action for adverse employment actions because of their use of cannabis.

What This Means for Employers

Employers should review their hiring practices and policies, as well as their employee handbooks and other relevant policies, to ensure compliance with CREAMMA’s provisions. Further, employers should ensure that all employment decisions are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and, specifically, not an individual’s use of cannabis.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers with any aspect of CREAMMA compliance and are available to answer your questions.

This blog will provide timely commentary on developments in New Jersey employment and workplace law, including legislative and regulatory changes, key court decisions and evolving workplace issues. Its purpose is to offer clear, practical insights that help readers understand how legal developments may impact employers and the workplace.

Designed for employers, HR professionals, and others with an interest in New Jersey workplace law, this blog will deliver straightforward analysis and relevant context on issues affecting workplaces across the state.

The New Jersey Workplace Law Blog will follow a consistent and thoughtful publishing approach:

  • Publishing Schedule: New posts will be published twice per month, every other Wednesday.
  • Contributor Insights: Posts will feature insights from Jackson Lewis attorneys experienced in New Jersey employment and workplace law.
  • Content Focus: Topics will include recent legal developments, practical workplace considerations, and common questions employers encounter.
  • Distribution: Blog posts will be published here and emailed to subscribers and posted on JacksonLewis.com.

The New Jersey Workplace Law Blog is intended to serve as a reliable resource for staying informed about workplace law developments in New Jersey.

We look forward to sharing insights and updates through this new platform. Subscribe now!

On May 4, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division, in a published opinion, prohibited successive motions for reconsideration of a final order. In the case, Doglio v. Boasso Am. Corp., the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, disposing of all claims as to all parties. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration under Court Rule 4:49-2 within twenty days of the grant of summary judgment, which the trial court subsequently denied. After the denial of the motion for reconsideration and with nothing pending, the trial court sua sponte reconsidered the grant of summary judgment as well as its denial of the motion for reconsideration. As a result, the trial court reinstated the matter for trial.

The Appellate Division, in reversing the trial court, held that a motion for reconsideration of a final order must be filed within twenty days of that order under Rule 4:49-2. Once a motion for reconsideration of a final order is denied, neither the trial court, on its own initiative, nor a party may take any action to vacate that final order. The opinion also clarified that the denial of a motion for reconsideration does not create a “new final judgment” subject to reconsideration under Rule 4:49-2.

The opinion focused on the principles favoring a policy of finality in summary judgment orders. Specifically, the Appellate Division cautioned that “[a]llowing a never-ending sequence of motions for reconsideration jeopardizes that policy and undermines the finality Rule 4:49-2 was designed to secure.”

The Doglio opinion firmly establishes the principle that “repetitive bites at the apple” swiftly sour the core. In this precedential opinion, the Appellate Division’s holding will limit the extent of post final-judgment motion practice and provide finality to parties.

New Jersey employers should begin preparing for significant amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA), which are scheduled to take effect on July 17, 2026.

The amendments broaden both employer coverage and employee eligibility:

  • Private employers with at least 15 employees during the relevant workweeks will be covered, lowering the current 30-employee threshold.
  • Employees will become eligible much sooner:
    • The service requirement will drop from 12 months to three months, and
    • The hours-worked requirement will drop from 1,000 base hours to 250 base hours during the immediately preceding 12-month period.

Employers Most Likely Affected

These changes are especially important for smaller employers and out-of-state employers with New Jersey-based employees. A business that previously was not covered by the NJFLA may need to comply once the amendments take effect.

Impact on TDI + FLI Benefits

The amendments also raise important questions regarding New Jersey Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) benefits.

  • The new statutory language provides that employees who take TDI or FLI benefits are entitled, upon expiration of the leave, to be restored to the position they held when leave began or to an equivalent position with like seniority, status, benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment.
    • This language may significantly expand job-protection obligations for employers, although questions remain as to whether the amendments create new leave rights or add job-protection requirements to existing leave and benefit rights.
  • The amendments also clarify that employees who are eligible for New Jersey Earned Sick Leave and TDI or FLI benefits may choose the order in which to use those benefits but may not receive more than one kind of paid leave simultaneously for the same period.

What to Do Now

  • Employers with New Jersey employees should begin preparing now to review and update leave policies, handbooks, HR procedures, and manager training.
  • Employers also should consider how the amended NJFLA will interact with FMLA, PTO policies, New Jersey Earned Sick Leave, TDI, FLI, benefits continuation, and COBRA administration.

We are actively assisting clients with updating policies, procedures, and training on the NJFLA amendments before their effective date to help reduce compliance risk and minimize operational disruption once the expanded family leave protections take effect.