Search form

Bill Would Revise New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to Limit Employment Agreements

By Robyn L. Aversa, Richard J. Cino and James M. McDonnell
  • December 6, 2017

A bill in the New Jersey State Senate would effectively prohibit jury waivers, arbitration clauses, and non-disclosure provisions related to claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1, et seq. (LAD).

S-3581, introduced in the Senate on December 4, 2017, declares, in no uncertain terms, that provisions in an employment contract that waive “any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment” are contrary to public policy and would be unenforceable. Furthermore, S-3581 would prohibit any prospective waiver of rights or remedies (e.g., a jury trial) under the LAD. If passed, the enforceability of arbitration clauses with respect to LAD claims would be questionable.

S-3581 also contains a #MeToo provision designed to eliminate non-disclosure provisions in agreements resolving claims under the LAD. It provides as follows:

A provision in any employment contract or agreement which has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable.

Clearly, an employer that seeks to resolve a claim under the LAD would be unable to enforce any confidentiality or non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements whether as part of a litigation or pre-suit negotiation.

Additional protections are provided to individuals who refuse to enter into an agreement with provisions contrary to the legislation. The bill prohibits an employer from taking retaliatory action (e.g., refusal to hire, discharge, suspension, demotion, and so on) on the grounds that an individual refuses to enter into an agreement with terms contrary to S-3581.

Lastly, to the extent an employer seeks to enforce an agreement contrary to the bill, the employee may collect costs and reasonable attorney’s fees for defending against any such suit.

The bill would affect agreements prospectively. It expressly does not apply to the terms of collective bargaining agreements.

If passed, S-3581 likely would drastically affect LAD litigation and strategy. The inability of an employer to utilize arbitration procedures or insist upon confidentiality in settlement agreements may result in fewer out-of-court resolutions and more protracted and costly litigation.

If you have any questions, please reach out to a Jackson Lewis attorney. We will keep you apprised of developments.

©2017 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

November 13, 2019

Healthcare Employers’ Title VII Obligations in Harassment, Discrimination of Employees by Patients

November 13, 2019

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires healthcare employers to protect their medical staff and employees from harassment and discrimination and respond to any such behaviors swiftly and effectively, even if the actor is a patient, rather than a coworker or supervisor. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit... Read More

October 18, 2019

Pay the Piper – California Employers Pressed to Pay Arbitration Fees or Risk Harsh Consequences

October 18, 2019

California employers may face harsh consequences for failing to pay arbitration fees on time under a bill (Senate Bill 707) signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2019. The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2020. Under the new law, if an employer fails to pay fees required for the commencement or continuation of an... Read More

October 15, 2019

New California Law Attacks Mandatory Arbitration Again … But Is It More Bark Than Bite?

October 15, 2019

California has joined a number of states in passing legislation purporting to prohibit mandatory arbitration agreements for sexual harassment and other claims. Such laws have gained popularity in the wake of the #MeToo movement, but are subject to challenge under Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preemption principles. (See our articles... Read More

Related Practices