New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog
Last updated August 31, 2026 · Reviewed by Jonathan I. Nirenberg
A New Jersey appeals court has held that a New Jersey resident who worked out of his employer’s Connecticut office could not sue under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, even though he spent his final months on the job working remotely from his New Jersey home. Redmond v. BDO USA, LLP, No. A-2310-24 (App. Div. Aug. 14, 2026), turned on where the job was based and w
here the alleged discrimination occurred, rather than on where the employee lived. The opinion is unpublished, so it binds only the parties and is not precedent for any other court.
Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. represents New Jersey employees in employment discrimination matters. We recognize that, since so many employees are now working from home for employers based in other states, the question of which state’s employment law applies arises often. Although the law is still developing on this issue, where the employee physically works, and where the unlawful discriminatory decision was made, rather than where the employee lives, generally decides which state’s discrimination statute applies.
The Facts of Redmond v. BDO USA
Charles Redmond, who is Black, was hired in January 2018 as a senior tax accountant in the Stamford, Connecticut office of BDO USA. BDO is an accounting firm headquartered outside New Jersey, but with an office in Woodbridge. Mr. Redmond lived in New Jersey. He rented an apartment in Connecticut while he worked for BDO in Stamford.
Mr. Redmond twice received a “Very Successful” performance rating. However, after Heide Moeller became the managing partner of BDO’s Stamford office in November 2019, his reviews suddenly turned negative.
Mr. Redmond began working remotely in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, dividing his time between New Jersey and Connecticut. That same month, he reported to the company’s human resources department that Ms. Moeller had harassed and discriminated against him because of his race, and created a hostile work environment. BDO placed Mr. Redmond on a performance improvement plan (PIP) in April, which he called retaliation. The company fired him on July 7, 2020.
Mr. Redmond filed a claim with Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. However, that agency released jurisdiction over Mr. Redmond’s case on May 10, 2022, and advised him that, pursuant to Connecticut law, his lawsuit must be brought within 90 days. He filed a lawsuit in Passaic County, New Jersey on July 7, 2022 under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, along with common law wrongful discharge claims, but did not serve the Complaint on the defendants until 132 days into the 90-day period.
When the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Reaches an Out-of-State Job
Under New Jersey law, the discrimination statute that applies to a firing generally is the law of either the state where the employee worked, or the state where the unlawful discriminatory actions occurred, rather than the state where the employee lived. Accordingly, a New Jersey resident employed at an out-of-state office ordinarily is covered by the other state’s anti-discrimination laws.
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), at N.J.S.A. § 10:5-12, makes it unlawful to discriminate in the terms and conditions of employment because of race and other protected characteristics. The LAD’s geographic limits have been discussed in previous cases, including Buccilli v. Timby, Brown & Timby, 283 N.J. Super. 6 (App. Div. 1995). In that case, the court held that a New Jersey resident’s claim for wrongful dismissal from out-of-state employment is governed by the law of the state where she was employed, since making each coworker’s rights depend on that person’s state of residence would be unreasonable from the employer’s perspective.
However, that rule is not absolute. In Calabotta v. Phibro Animal Health Corp., 460 N.J. Super. 38 (App. Div. 2019), a nonresident sued a New Jersey headquartered employer over a promotion he alleged was denied in New Jersey. The Calabotta court cautioned that Buccilli did not establish a bright-line principle governing every discrimination claim. Calabotta applied a choice-of-law analysis, the method courts use to decide which state’s law governs a dispute connected to more than one state.
What the Appellate Division Decided
In Redmond, the appellate court found Redmond’s situation essentially identical to Buccilli because he lived in New Jersey but worked exclusively out of the Connecticut office and every act of alleged discrimination took place outside New Jersey. It described his work from home as a continuation of a job that remained based in Connecticut, and distinguished Calabotta on the ground that the claim there concerned a New Jersey job and a decision allegedly made in New Jersey. It concluded that the claims under the Connecticut anti-discrimination law failed based on the timing, since Mr. Redmond failed to serve his Complaint on BDO within 90 days after the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities released jurisdiction over the case.
However, the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of Ms. Moeller as an individual defendant on the remaining claims, holding that New Jersey courts can exercise general jurisdiction over her because of her partnership interest in BDO, a company that does business in New Jersey. It also reinstated the New Jersey common law wrongful discharge claims against BDO and Ms. Moeller, holding that although discrimination statute can subsume a related common law claim, dismissal of the statutory claim does not necessarily dismiss a common law claims with it. Those claims return to the trial court, where their merits have not yet been decided.
Why the Ruling Matters for New Jersey Employees Working Out of State
Working from a New Jersey address does not, by itself, mean that New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws apply to you . The court look at where your job is based, where the supervisors and the decisionmakers sat, and where the allegedly unlawful conduct occurred, to decide which employment law statutes apply.
Further, when another state’s law governs, that state’s deadlines also govern, which can be far less forgiving than New Jersey law. A claim under New Jersey’s statute runs on a two-year period and may be filed directly in the Superior Court. In contrast, claims under Connecticut’s anti-discrimination law provide only 90 days after the state agency dismisses the claim for an employee to file and serve a lawsuit on the defendants.
In addition, New Jersey recognizes a common law claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Appellate Division’s ruling confirms that losing a statutory discrimination claim does not necessarily extinguish that common law claim.
Because the Redmond opinion is unpublished, none of its rulings bind another court.
Contact a New Jersey Employment Discrimination Lawyer
Questions about which state’s law governs a discrimination claim are best answered early, while every deadline is still open. Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. represents employees throughout New Jersey, and we act for workers rather than employers. Contact us at (201) 777-2250. or through our contact page, to schedule a consultation and discuss your situation.