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 with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

April 22, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on LGBTQ Workplace Protections under Title VII

April 22, 2019

Whether LGTBQ employees are protected from employment discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court next term. The Court has agreed to hear three cases to determine: Whether Title VII’s ban on “sex”-based discrimination prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation; and... Read More

April 16, 2019

Indiana Court Declines to Expand At-Will Employment Exception

April 16, 2019

Reaffirming Indiana’s “strong” presumption of at-will employment, the Indiana Court of Appeals has declined to expand the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine to include an employee’s mistaken belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing. Perkins v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, No. 18A-CT-... Read More

April 2, 2019

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Its ‘Similarly Situated’ Standard for Workplace Discrimination Claims

April 2, 2019

The proper standard for comparator evidence in cases alleging intentional discrimination is “similarly situated in all material aspects,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has clarified in an en banc ruling. Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., No. 15-11362, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8450 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). The... Read More

Related Practices