NJ Jury Duty and Pay

Salaried employee was on jury duty for 4 weeks 3 days a week. Surprise! Paystub from work indicates they took 40 hours of vacation time from him and then the rest (56 hours) WITHOUT PAY. Is this allowed?

I'll add he had no idea- no one told him this and if he had know, he certainly would not have agreed to serve on a jury.

The law only requires your job allows you to go to jury duty. They're not required to pay you as far as I know. If he'd known, he could've claimed an economic hardship and been excused.

Allowed? Employers aren't obligated to pay employees for jury duty. Some do, but it's not required.

It might be allowed, depending on the state. In NY, I think, employees are asked to pay a daily fee - $50 or so - to employees for the first few days. Full pay? No.

Employers have a lot of discretion, and it should be outlined in an employee policy somewhere. Respectfully, the employee should not have taken so much time off - regardless of the reason - without understanding upfront what the pay policy would be. A quick google would have shown that employers aren't required to pay.

Its not up to a citizen to agree to serve or not. If you are summoned you have to report, and at least make a case why you can't serve. I do believe the court has a provision to pay for mileage and tolls to the courthouse if that helps.

Absolutely allowed. The employee was not working for the employer while serving on the jury. Furthermore, while some judges might take into consideration a juror's concern that they will not be paid by their employer while serving on a jury, this claim does not automatically result in the juror being excused from jury duty. Even if the juror had known in advance that the juror would not be compensated by their employer for time served on the jury, the juror could still have been legally obligated to serve or be found in contempt of court.

I have served on jury duty a number of times at different jobs and have NEVER not been paid my full salary (employed in both NY and NJ). He's actually served before (only 2 days that time) at this SAME JOB and was never docked any pay. I had no idea they could actually not pay a salaried employee. That is terrible. No wonder people don't want to serve. And, yes, he could have done what everyone else did and get out of jury duty. They even excused people for simply stating they had economic hardship, others for saying they had various family obligations. He actually enjoyed serving and did a good job- the hell with that next time. Ridiculous.

I got this from a legal information website. It looks like the amount of time your friend spent on the jury made the difference:

"Most employers believe that an employee has a civic responsibility to serve when called as a juror or witness, and many states prohibit discrimination against employees who serve as a juror or witness. Although most employers pay employees on leave for jury service, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not require employers to pay nonexempt salaried employees or hourly employees while on leave for jury service. However, employers must pay full salaries to exempt employees who are absent from work for less than 1 week to perform jury service."

Has he challenged it? Maybe it just got mis-coded.

yahooyahoo, that is helpful and may be why I always just assumed it was at regular pay. He has not challenged it yet. He didn't even know about it until he just looked at his 2/28 paystub and say what was done. I'll check to see if he was at least paid for the first week of jury duty and then tell him to push back on them about the rest. I am sure it won't matter but at least he'll let them know what he thinks of how they operate (and how the try to be so sneaky)

potential jurors can ask for a financial hardship exemption. last I heard, jurors were paid $5 a day by the court and the employer had the option to pay or not in NJ. that varies by state.

Found his company's stated policy on-line but I am unclear on part I put in Bold?

Jury Duty: Unless otherwise required by law, up to five (5) paid days off are available for missed work due to jury duty. If you receive a court summons, please notify your manager immediately. The court summons must be submitted to your manager if you miss work. (Note that under rules of the Federal Labor Standards Act, deductions may not be made to Exempt Employees' pay due to partial workweek absences caused by jury duty or attendance as a witness. Some states have additional regulations affecting payment for and service of jury duty. Contact your Human Resources representative for further information).

Am I to take this to mean that since he served 3 days or less a week (partial workweek) for the 4 weeks, they cannot deduct from his pay at all?

The other annoying part- he (like may of us in salaried positions) still did a large portion of his day job while serving. He came home at night and did 3-5 hours of work and returned calls on his lunch hours and breaks.

The partial workweek I'll assume is up to the interpretation of his immediate supervisor. He should 100% challenge it and see what he can get back. With that said, he should've consulted with his boss and at least have worked out the extra work he did at home and in between breaks and weekends so that everyone was on the same page. My workmate served on a jury for 6 weeks, Tue-Thu. Salaried. She worked mornings, nights and weekends to keep up with her workload but her boss was aware of what was going on. We don't have a written policy on maximum jury paid time but she was paid without issue. So it seems this is resulting from lack of communication upfront about what is expected of the employee and employer. He assumed jury duty pay was implied. Yes? No?

conandrob240 said:

Am I to take this to mean that since he served 3 days or less a week (partial workweek) for the 4 weeks, they cannot deduct from his pay at all?

The other annoying part- he (like may of us in salaried positions) still did a large portion of his day job while serving. He came home at night and did 3-5 hours of work and returned calls on his lunch hours and breaks.

He did exactly what he was supposed to do and communicated to his boss that he would be serving on a jury. He offered to respond to emails and catch up as best as he could in the after hours. he's in sales so his catch up involved servicing existing customers, returning calls, filing out paperwork. He knew going in he'd already be dinged from a commission standpoint since he wasn't calling on customers.

No one explained anything about pay to anyone. After the first week, he even brought his silly little check in and asked them if they required it be signed over to them and they told him to keep it. Would have been a nice chance for them to make it clear he wasn't being paid.

In any case, who should have done what is pointless now, I just want to understand the policy so he has some leverage to protest it. Like I said, at the very least he'll let them know what he thinks of them. (Its not just this, its a bunch of other stuff as well)

I know. The current system pretty much guarantees most defendants won't face a jury of their peers. A tragedy in its own right.

conandrob240 said:

He did exactly what he was supposed to do and communicated to his boss that he would be serving on a jury. He offered to respond to emails and catch up as best as he could in the after hours. he's in sales so his catch up involved servicing existing customers, returning calls, filing out paperwork. He knew going in he'd already be dinged from a commission standpoint since he wasn't calling on customers.

No one explained anything about pay to anyone. After the first week, he even brought his silly little check in and asked them if they required it be signed over to them and they told him to keep it. Would have been a nice chance for them to make it clear he wasn't being paid.

In any case, who should have done what is pointless now, I just want to understand the policy so he has some leverage to protest it. Like I said, at the very least he'll let them know what he thinks of them. (Its not just this, its a bunch of other stuff as well)

I worked for ages for an employer who you might say, politely, was big into thrift. I was called for jury duty virtually every time I was eligible, at every level. I always provided HR with the requested paperwork, and tried to do work before and after jury commitments, but it was never a full day or anywhere close to it -- but not once over the years was I denied even one hour's pay from my salary. And by law they could at the very least have taken out the $15 a day or whatever jury duty pays, and they did not.

heynj, that has always been my experience as well. That's why this was such a surprise

Is his position FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) exempt? If not, the partial work week statement you quoted would not apply.

Doesn't exempt mean salaried/commission vs hourly?

No. Check with the employee's HR to determine how the position is classified.

yahooyahoo said:

I got this from a legal information website. It looks like the amount of time your friend spent on the jury made the difference:


"Most employers believe that an employee has a civic responsibility to serve when called as a juror or witness, and many states prohibit discrimination against employees who serve as a juror or witness. Although most employers pay employees on leave for jury service, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not require employers to pay nonexempt salaried employees or hourly employees while on leave for jury service. However, employers must pay full salaries to exempt employees who are absent from work for less than 1 week to perform jury service."

If you would, please explain the difference between exempt and non-exempt salaried employees.

I recall there being a distinction, but can not recall the distinction. Any help you may be able to provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

TomR