In Maia v. IEW Construction Group, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Chapter 212 of the Wage Payment Law (WPL) and the Wage and Hour Law (WHL) in New Jersey, which took effect on August 6, 2019, cannot be applied retroactively to conduct that occurred before this date.  This case involved plaintiffs Christopher Maia and Sean Howarth, who alleged that their employer, IEW Construction Group, failed to compensate them for “pre-shift” and “post-shift” work performed before and following the enactment of Chapter 212.  At the trial level, the court dismissed claims related to pre-effective date conduct, a decision that the Appellate Division initially overturned, prompting the Supreme Court’s review and eventual affirmation of the trial judge’s dismissal.

In short, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores a critical principle in statutory interpretation: substantive changes in law, such as those introduced by Chapter 212, which include new legal consequences like liquidated damages, retaliation claims, and extended statute of limitations, should not be applied retroactively unless explicitly intended by the Legislature.  This mirrors the considerations in federal law, as discussed in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S. Ct. 1483 (1994), which emphasizes the necessity to determine if new legal consequences are attached to events completed before the enactment of new legislation.  By affirming the prospective application, the Court maintained that the Legislature’s intent, signaled by the immediate effective date clause, was clear in not supporting retroactivity.

This decision can be contrasted with New Jersey’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act, N.J.S.A. 17:29BB-1, which involves similar issues and legal implications regarding a party’s conduct.  The IFCA allows policyholders to claim damages for insurance company misconduct, potentially including punitive damages and attorney fees.  However, as with Chapter 212, its application to actions before its effective date would require explicit legislative intent for retroactivity.  This case reinforces New Jersey’s cautious approach towards retroactive application of laws, ensuring that any substantive legal changes respect established principles and parties’ expectations, thereby avoiding unforeseen liabilities and upholding justice and fairness in legal processes.  However, it may indicate that the appellate courts will take the approach that the principal factor is the date of the conduct, as opposed to the date of the accident, or other potential trigger points to determine whether any claims may exist.

A copy of the Maia decision can be found here.

For additional questions, please contact Robert J. Cahall, Esq., Scott J. Tredwell, Esq., and/or Igor Konstankevich, Esq. for further inquiries.

This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers.  This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.  All Rights Reserved.  This article may not be reprinted without the express permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.