Search form

New Jersey Closer to Bar on Jury Waivers, Arbitration Agreements, Secrecy of Harassment Settlements

By Martin W. Aron, Richard J. Cino and James M. McDonnell
  • June 8, 2018

The New Jersey Senate has passed a bill that would prohibit jury waivers and agreements that conceal the details of discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1, et seq. (LAD). The bill, which passed by a vote of 34-1, also would call into question the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate LAD claims. The significant support it received in the Senate may signal quick passage in the Assembly and the likelihood of signature by the Governor.

The LAD makes it unlawful to subject individuals to differential treatment based on race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex (including pregnancy), familial status, marital status, domestic partnership or civil union status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for military service, and mental or physical disability, perceived disability, and AIDS and HIV status.

An earlier version of the bill was introduced in 2017 and fast-tracked for consideration by the Senate. (For more on the 2017 bill, see our article, Bill Would Revise New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to Limit Employment Agreements.)

Similar to the 2017 bill, S-121 states broadly that employment contracts 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-121 would prohibit any prospective waiver of rights or remedies (e.g., a jury trial) under the LAD. If the bill is enacted, the enforceability of arbitration clauses with respect to LAD claims may be deemed unenforceable, although this is certain to raise arguments of preemption under the Federal Arbitration Act.

S-121 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.

If the bill is signed into law, 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. That would eliminate the incentive of many parties seeking to settle harassment and discrimination claims. Confidentiality is a key term required by most employers (and other parties, including those subjected to the conduct) in settlement agreements. By removing the ability to keep the claims and settlement confidential, many parties may choose to litigate a case to conclusion and a full vindication on the record.

Additional protections are afforded 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-121.

Lastly, to the extent an employer seeks to enforce an agreement contrary to the bill, the aggrieved 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-121 would affect the strategy and settlement of LAD claims significantly. 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 about the bill and its potential ramifications, please reach out to a Jackson Lewis attorney. We will keep you apprised of developments.

©2018 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

June 13, 2018

New Hampshire Prohibits Gender Identity Discrimination

June 13, 2018

New Hampshire became the 20th state in the country to prohibit discrimination of all forms based upon gender identity when Governor Chris Sununu signed House Bill 1319 into law on June 8, 2018. The law goes into effect on July 8, 2018. House Bill 1319 adds “gender identity” to the list of protected classes under the New Hampshire Law... Read More

June 7, 2018

Employment-at-Will Comes to Puerto Rico?

June 7, 2018

Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board and Governor Ricardo Rosselló have sent bills to the Puerto Rico legislature to repeal the Unjust Dismissal Act, Act No. 80 of May 30, 1976 (Act 80). If either bill is enacted, employers in Puerto Rico will no longer be required to have “just cause” to dismiss employees hired for an... Read More

June 4, 2018

Supreme Court: Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission Anti-Religious Bias Violated Cake Baker’s Rights

June 4, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a narrow ruling in favor of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111 (June 4, 2018). The Court’s 7-2 decision resolves the specific conflict between the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, and... Read More

Related Practices