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 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 www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

March 20, 2019

New Jersey Prohibits Enforcement of Non-Disclosure Provisions in Settlement Agreements, Other Contracts

March 20, 2019

A sweeping amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) bars enforcement of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements and employment contracts, and prohibits the waiver of substantive and procedural rights under the statute. The amendment applies to all contracts and agreements entered into, renewed, modified, or... Read More

February 28, 2019

Portland, Oregon, Bars Discrimination Against Atheists, Agnostics

February 28, 2019

An amendment to the civil rights code of Portland, Oregon, extends protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations to atheists, agnostics, and other “non-believers.” Religious facilities are expressly exempt. The Portland City Code, chapter 23.01, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of... Read More

February 27, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) Is Not Subject to Equitable Tolling

February 27, 2019

In a decision important to class action practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019... Read More

Related Practices