Posted on

Long Live Remote Work: MTA’s Congestion Pricing to Cost NJ Drivers from $9 to $23 to Drive South of 60th Street in Manhattan

Times Square

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, The Federal Highway Administration approved the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s plan to add a controversial toll (congestion pricing) around Manhattan’s central business district. A group of Congress members from New Jersey both Democrats and Republicans – called on New York Governor Kathy Hochul to cancel the plan, saying that it will “impose significant new costs” on New Jersey commuters and families. The signees included Reps. Thomas Kean Jr., Frank Pallone Jr., Bill Pascrell Jr., Donald Payne Jr., Mikie Sherrill, Jeff Van Drew and Bonnie Watson Coleman.

Continue reading Long Live Remote Work: MTA’s Congestion Pricing to Cost NJ Drivers from $9 to $23 to Drive South of 60th Street in Manhattan

Posted on

NJ Attorney General Forces Company to Pay Ex-Worker with Sleep Apnea for Failing to Reinstate Him Despite Medical Clearance

3835396464 1bfd32c3b2 z1

August 9,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Trenton NJ,  Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal and the Division on Civil Rights announced today that a New Jersey trucking company must pay an ex-employee with sleep apnea $30,000 to resolve allegations it fired the man despite repeated medical examinations certifying him as fit for duty.

P. Judge & Sons, Inc., a trucking company located in Essex County, must pay former employee R.B. $15,000 to cover lost wages and another $15,000 for alleged pain and suffering. R.B. – the ex-employee’s name is being withheld to protect his medical privacy – worked as a yard switcher at the P. Judge & Sons facility in Port Newark. Among other duties, he conducted vehicle inspections, maintained the yard and emptied containers and trailers from the yard to the loading docks.

“This case should serve as a reminder to employers across New Jersey that our Law Against Discrimination prevents disability discrimination, and we are committed to ensuring those rights are protected,” said Attorney General Grewal. “In the face of repeated certifications of fitness for duty by licensed medical professionals, employers simply do not have authority to impose their own, uninformed biases and terminate a person with a disability.”
In March 2015, R.B. underwent a physical exam required periodically for workers in his job by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The exam resulted in a diagnosis of sleep apnea, and R.B. was placed on medical leave. R.B. then began treatment for his apnea and later underwent a physical examination at Concentra Medical Center – the company’s medical provider – in Newark. As a result of the physical, R.B. was issued a Medical Examiner’s Certificate (MEC) clearing him to return to his job. The MEC was valid for one month, and R.B. was instructed to continue treatment for his apnea after resuming work.

Despite the MEC clearing him to return, R.B. was denied reinstatement. Allegedly, his supervisor told R.B. that he needed an MEC valid for at least three months. However, after R.B. underwent a subsequent physical examination and obtained an MEC valid for three months, he was again denied reinstatement.

After seven months of being out of work – and repeated denials of reinstatement despite two MECs declaring him fit – R.B. filed a formal Complaint with the Division on Civil Rights.
During an investigation by the Division, one company official at P. Judge & Sons told investigators that R.B. was not permitted to resume work because he was continuing to receive treatment for his sleep apnea, and the company is “under no obligation to employ individuals whose health is non-compliant.”

Another company official argued that R.B. technically was not terminated. Rather, the official said, R.B. never contacted the company again after being denied reinstatement the last time. The same official contended that reinstating R.B. was a potential liability, because an employee afflicted with sleep apnea “can go to work… three months goes by, then he’s off, has to go to the doctor, and we’re getting charged by Concentra for the medical treatment.”
Division Director Sashihara noted that a Division investigation found nothing in DOT regulations, or in P. Judge & Sons’ own internal policies, to support the suggestion that the company was barred from reinstating R.B. once he presented either the one-month or three-month MEC.

“We know from our investigation that the company has, in the past, returned employees to work on the basis of a one-month MEC. We know that because company officials who we interviewed told us so,” said Director Sashihara. “Again, the law is the law, and ignorance of it – or disagreement with it – is no excuse. No matter the opinions or intentions behind it, employers and managers with no medical training cannot simply decide to terminate a worker based solely on assumptions, internet articles and the anecdotal experiences related by people they know, which is what we allege took place here.”

In addition to paying R.B. $30,000, P. Judge & Sons is required under the settlement announced today to adopt a variety of workplace policy and training reforms. The company also must submit to State monitoring of its treatment of employees and job applicants with disabilities for the next two years.

Posted on

Obama Administration : “Blue Line ” expressing support for law enforcement officers Illegal

Ridgewood Police Blue LIne

Interpretation Letter 3(09)-41(I) — Markings between Double Lines
DOT Logo

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, D.C. 20590

December 8, 2016

In Reply Refer To: HOTO-1

Matthew D. Loper, P.E.
County Engineer
Somerset County Engineering Division
County Administration Building
20 Grove Street
PO Box 3000

Somerville, New Jersey 08876-1262

Dear Mr. Loper:

Thank you for your October 14 letter regarding the use of a color marking between the lines of a double-yellow centerline marking. You requested clarification on whether this type of installation would comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD).

Section 3A.06 of the MUTCD states that the pattern of a longitudinal double line shall be two parallel lines separated by a discernible space. For this space between the two lines to be discernible it must represent a lack of other markings.  Accordingly, the pavement surface must be visible in the space between the lines in the same way that it is visible outside the lines. On this basis alone, filling in the gap in a double line, either partially or fully, does not comply with the provisions of the MUTCD. The exception herein is the use of black in combination with one of the approved pavement marking colors, as noted in Section 3A.05.

Further, in accordance with Section 3A.05 of the MUTCD, the use of blue pavement markings is limited to supplementing white markings for parking spaces for persons with disabilities. The use of blue lines as part of centerline markings does not comply with the provisions of the MUTCD.

Further detail on the use of blue as a pavement color is provided in our August 15, 2013 Official Ruling 3(09)-24 (I), “Application of Colored Pavement”:

Blue is not a colored pavement and is not to be used as such in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Section 3G.01. Blue as it applies to a pavement marking is exclusively reserved for the background color in the international symbol of accessibility parking symbol (see Figure 3B-22) and for the supplemental pavement marking lines that define legal parking spaces reserved for use only by persons with disabilities as provided in Paragraph 5 of Section 3A.05.

We appreciate the impact of expressing support for law enforcement officers and value their contributions to society. There are many appropriate and fitting ways to recognize service to the public that do not involve the modification of a traffic control device, which can put the road user at risk due to misinterpretation of its meaning. It is therefore critical that the uniformity of pavement markings be maintained so as to present a consistent message that accommodates the expectancy of road users. For recordkeeping purposes, we have assigned your request for interpretation the following Official Ruling number and title: 3(09)-41 (I), “Markings between Double Lines.”

Sincerely yours,

Original signed by:

Mark R. Kehrli
Director, Office of Transportation Operations