February 11, 2026

By Ty Hyderally, Esq., Francine Foner Esq., Aleisha Andino

In a case of first impression, the New Jersey Appellate Division recently issued a decision interpreting various provision of the New Jersey Earned Sick Leave Law (“NJESLL”), N.J.S.A. 34:11D-1 to -13. Cano v. Cnty. Concrete Corp., 2026 N.J. Super. LEXIS 8, 2026 LX 41252, 2026 WL 216364 (App. Div. Jan. 28, 2026).

The NJESLL, which took effect on October 29, 2018, provides expansive paid sick leave rights for nearly all New Jersey workers, including part-time and temporary employees. The law requires covered employers to provide eligible employees with paid sick time for, among other things, an employee’s own illness, to care for a family member, or attend a meeting at an employee’s child’s school. The NJESLL permits eligible employees to earn one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours they work, up to 40 hours per year. The NJESLL also requires employers to provide written notice about earned sick leave, display an Earned Sick Leave poster in a visible spot in the workplace, and keep five years of records documenting compliance.  In addition, some employers are exempt from the NJESLL, including those that are in the “construction industry”.

In Cano, Plaintiffs William Cano and Raymond Bonelli, hourly drivers for County Concrete Corporation’s (“County Concrete”), filed a complaint alleging violations of the NJESLL on behalf of themselves and 103 similarly situated employees. During motion practice prior to trial, County Concrete contended that it was exempt from the NJESLL’s requirements, because it was in the “construction industry”.  Because the NJESLL does not specifically define the term “construction industry,” the Trial Court, employing a “plain meaning reading” to interpret the meaning of “construction industry” in the NJESLL, found that the same refers to a business which is engaged “in the business of constructing houses, schools, or other structures.”  Id. at *12. Because County Concrete’s business operations were those of a manufacturer/supplier, rather than a builder, the Court held that the “construction industry” exemption did not apply to County Concrete.  Id.

Plaintiffs also alleged that County Concrete’s leave policy failed to comply with NJESLL’s calculation methodology for accruing sick leave under N.J.S.A. 34:11D-2(b) and that Defendant failed to provide notice of NJESLL rights to employees as required by the statute.

The Trial Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs, holding that County Concrete violated NJESLL’s requirement of written notice to employees, but denied summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs other arguments, based on its conclusion that genuine factual disputes existed regarding whether the defendant’s policy was unlawful or that it failed to maintain records of employees’ sick leave. Id. at *7

In September 2022, a bench trial was held where the Trial Court determined that County Concrete had not complied with the NJESLL by failing to provide notice to employees of their rights, not maintaining records, and not providing sick leave benefits to employees pursuant to the law. Id. at *8. County Concrete appealed the Trial Court’s decision.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court’s finding that the company was not entitled to the “construction industry” exemption. The Appellate Division also affirmed that the company’s vacation policy violated the NJESLL by unlawfully requiring a doctor’s note for an illness-related absence of less than three days, and limiting qualifying reasons for leave solely to vacation, bereavement, and holidays, but not for any of the other permissible reasons for leave under the NJESLL. Further, the Defendant’s policy did not provide for accrual of paid sick leave in the manner required by the NJESLL. The Appellate Division further affirmed that Defendant had failed to provide proper notice of NJESLL’s rights to employees and did not track accrued sick leave time. Id. at *15-18.

The Appellate Division further found that noncompliance with the NJESLL’s recordkeeping requirements creates a presumption that an employer failed to provide the earned sick leave required by the law, PTO policies which combine vacation and sick leave must provide paid leave for all purposes required by the NJESLL, and failure to provide earned sick leave constitutes failure to pay wages under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a to -56a30, subjecting employers to an additional 200 percent in liquidated damages. Id. at *15-17, 24-25.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court’s Judgment, upholding damages of $9,120 for plaintiff Bonelli, $8,880 for plaintiff Cano, and $758,898.38 for the unnamed plaintiffs. Id. at *9.

This decision paves the way to expand the types of employees who are eligible for the protections of the NJESLL, by clarifying which employers fall within the “construction industry” exemption. It also makes clear that employer PTO policies which combine vacation and time off for other reasons must include all of the substantive and procedural protections required by the NJESLL.

If you feel that you are the target of discrimination, harassment, whistleblower retaliation, or some other issue in the workplace, or if you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek out an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-two (22) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español.

This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice about your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.