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 Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 8, 2018

Supreme Court Hears Case on Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements for Transportation Workers

October 8, 2018

On October 3, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340. While the case turns on what may appear to be a simple question of statutory interpretation, the outcome could have profound consequences for employers throughout the transportation industry, for hundreds of thousands of independent... Read More

October 8, 2018

Kentucky Supreme Court Holds Employers May Not Require Arbitration Agreements as a Condition of Employment

October 8, 2018

On September 27, 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued its opinion in Northern Kentucky Area Development District v. Snyder, No. 2017-SC-000277-DG, and held that Kentucky employers may not require employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied upon KRS... Read More

October 3, 2018

Supreme Court Hears Age Discrimination in Employment Act Case

October 3, 2018

Does language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) exempting “employers” with fewer than 20 employees apply to state governments or their subdivisions? Collin O’Connor Udell of Jackson Lewis attended the U.S. Supreme Court argument held on October 1, 2018, in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, No. 17-587. She wrote the... Read More

Related Practices