Search form

Amendment to New Jersey Anti-Discrimination Law Poses Challenges to Using Non-Disclosure and Jury Trial Waiver Provisions

By Martin W. Aron, John K. Bennett and Katherine M. DiCicco
  • February 4, 2019

An amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to prohibit enforcement of non-disclosure provisions in certain agreements, including employment contracts and settlement agreements, has been passed by the New Jersey Legislature. The amendment could also potentially impact use of jury trial waivers, given the LAD’s jury trial provision. Governor Phil Murphy is expected to sign this legislation into law.

The amendment prohibits enforcement of agreements that:

  1. “[W]aive[] any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment”;
  2. [P]rospectively waive a right or remedy under the LAD or any other statute or case law; and
  3. “[Have] the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.”

The amendment states that such agreements are against public policy.

The amendment further provides that agreements containing such a provision will be invalid and unenforceable, and aggrieved workers may file suit in New Jersey state court to recover common law tort remedies, in addition to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Employers, the New Jersey State Bar Association, and members of the defense bar have criticized the amendment, which is expected to make resolving employment disputes more difficult. In the past, non-disclosure provisions in employment contracts and settlement agreements have served as a partial incentive for settlement. For example, it is common for settlement agreements in LAD cases to contain provisions prohibiting the employee from disclosing the terms of the settlement and the factual specifics of the matter, and to say only that the matter has been resolved. This language is now considered against public policy and unenforceable.

The amendment also requires an employer to provide notice. Employers are directed to include “a bold, prominently placed notice that although the parties may have agreed to keep the settlement and underlying facts confidential, such a provision in an agreement is unenforceable against the employer if the employee publicly reveals sufficient details of the claim so that the employer is reasonably identifiable.” The promise of confidentiality has motivated employers to resolve LAD claims against them by way of settlement, rather than by litigation, which would create a public record.

The amendment also prohibits prospective waiver of any right or remedy under the LAD “or any other statute or case law.” The sweeping language of the amendment appears to prevent an employee from agreeing to a jury-trial waiver, which is a common part of agreements to arbitrate LAD claims. Such waivers have been found, in certain circumstances, to be enforceable in New Jersey. Moreover, the enforceability of this amendment as it relates to jury trial waivers and arbitration agreements is still uncertain. The amendment may conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which preempts state law that prohibits the use of arbitration agreements. See, e g., Kindred Nursing Centers L.P. v. Clark, 581 U.S. ___, (2017) (State law violates the FAA by singling out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 341 (2011) (“When state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA.”).

It will be important for employers not only to consider restructuring settlement agreements to resolve claims, but also to review and revise their employment contracts, other agreements, and employee handbooks to address this amendment.

The amendment comes on the heels of the #MeToo movement, and in response to non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements between certain well-known media personalities and their alleged victims. New York and California have enacted similar laws. (See our article, Claims of Workplace Harassment in California to Receive Greater Protections under New Law.)

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding the LAD and assist employers in achieving compliance with its requirements.

©2019 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

June 25, 2019

New York City to Prohibit Retaliation for Requesting Reasonable Accommodation

June 25, 2019

On June 13, 2019, the New York City Council passed Intro 799 to prohibit retaliation against individuals who make a request for a reasonable accommodation under any applicable provision of chapter 1 of the New York City Human Rights Law. The bill awaits Mayor Bill de Blasio’s signature. The Mayor is expected to sign it. The bill takes... Read More

June 25, 2019

Are General Contractors Liable for Their Subcontractors’ Actions or Inactions?

June 25, 2019

A general contractor in Southern California found itself on the hook for its subcontractor’s failure to pay wages to its workers, even though the general contractor had no knowledge of it. The case illustrates an important reminder for general contractors. The general contractor was fined close to $600,000 under a 2017 California... Read More

June 25, 2019

How to Lower Risk by Cutting Harmful Company Documents

June 25, 2019

While company documents are necessary, some can expose a company to liability and other harms. Knowing how to identify and cut the harmful ones may help a company lower corporate risks. Here are three ways a company can assess the state of its documents and correct any issues. 1. Dishonest Documents A dishonest document may... Read More

Related Practices