Articles Tagged with New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

Sexual harassment at workA recent unpublished opinion from the New Jersey Appellate Division holds that employees cannot waive in advance their right to recover punitive damages under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

Milagros Roman worked for Bergen Logistics LLC as a human resources generalist. She claims that her immediate boss, Human Resources Director Gregg Oliver, made sexual advances toward her.  She further alleges that Mr. Oliver retaliated against her by firing her because she complained about the sexual harassment.

Ms. Roman filed a lawsuit against Bergen and Mr. Oliver, claiming they harassed and retaliated against her in violation of the LAD.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss her case and refer it to arbitration.  They relied on the fact that when Bergen hired Ms. Roman, she signed an arbitration agreement that required her to resolve any disputes relating to her employment relationship in binding arbitration rather than in court.  That agreement includes a provision which states that: “BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT YOU AND COMPANY ARE WAIVING ANY RIGHT, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, TO A TRIAL BY JURY AND TO PUNITIVE AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.”

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) prohibits discrimination in the workplace.  But does it protect employees who work for New Jersey companies remotely, such as telecommuters?  A recent ruling by New Jersey’s Appellate Division makes it clear that an employee does not have to physically live or work in New Jersey to be protected by the LAD.

Susan Trevejo worked for Legal Cost Control (“LCC”) for 12 years.  After LCC fired her, Ms. Trevejo sued for age discrimination in violation of the LAD.  LCC is a New Jersey company which has its headquarters in Haddonfield, New Jersey.  However, Ms. Trevejo is a resident of Massachusetts who has never lived in New Jersey or worked in LCC’s office in New Jersey aside from a few meetings she attended earlier in her tenure with the company. Rather, she worked remotely from her home.

Early into the case, LCC filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the LAD does not apply to Ms. Trevejo because she is not an “inhabitant” of New Jersey.  The trial court denied LCC’s motion, and instead permitted the parties to engage in some limited discovery (the process of exchanging information in a lawsuit) about Ms. Trevejo’s right to bring a claim under the LAD.

Contact Information