Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The proposed Senate Bill 2310 requires New Jersey businesses with 10 or more employees to include wage or salary information, ... also called a pay transparency law, by a 9-1 vote during the ...
In 2025, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Michigan, and Vermont, will join a growing number of states that have enacted pay transparency laws over the past few years, including ...
In the past few years, a growing number of states have put laws on their books requiring employers to disclose pay ranges for open positions – either in their job postings or during the hiring ...
New York enacted a pay transparency law in 2023. The law requires employers to publicly disclose job salary ranges. [6] Massachusetts enacted a pay transparency law in July, 2024, which applies to businesses with more than 24 employees, with data reporting for businesses with 100 or more employees. [7]
Although typically initial decisions of OAL ALJ's may be adopted, modified, or rejected by agency heads, the reasons for modifying or rejecting a decision must be specified in writing and supported by evidence. A final agency decision may be appealed to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. [3]
The mission of the New Jersey Department of the Treasury is to formulate and manage the state's budget, generate and collect revenues, disburse the appropriations used to operate New Jersey state government, manage the state's physical and financial assets, and provide statewide support services to state and local government agencies as well as the citizens of New Jersey.
New state regulations and an upcoming EU law will require HR teams to educate managers on how to handle employee questions about pay.
Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. 266 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even ...