Courtesy of Fotolia

A state appeals court has ruled, albeit in an unpublished decision, that an out-of-state resident working remotely for a New Jersey-based company may be afforded protections under the state's Law Against Discrimination.

The Appellate Division declined to dismiss the suit based on her residency and said the employee, because of her ties with the New Jersey company, is entitled to move her age discrimination suit into discovery.

Even though the plaintiff, Susan Trevejo, lived in Massachusetts, she worked remotely for a Haddonfield-based company, Legal Cost Control, and should be covered by the LAD, wrote Appellate Division Judges Robert Gilson and Jessica Mayer.

The court overturned a trial judge's ruling that since Trevejo was not an “inhabitant,” she could not sue.

According to the court, Trevejo was employed by LCC, a company that monitors legal fees, from 2003 to 2015. She never lived in New Jersey and only visited the company's headquarters on a few occasions. She was tied in with the company's computer systems, had a company-issued cellphone and had health insurance through her employer. Trevejo should at least be allowed a chance to prove her ties to New Jersey and thus avail herself of the state's broad anti-discrimination statute, the court said, rejecting LCC's argument.

“Nowhere in the LAD statute is the term 'inhabitant' defined or otherwise expressed,” the court said in the per curiam decision. “Contrary to defendant's argument the [LAD] prohibits unlawful employment practices and unlawful discrimination against 'any individual.'”

The appeals court said the practice of telecommuting raises novel questions.

“Based upon current computer technology and the forward thinking concept of 'telecommuting,' we are satisfied that determining who may be entitled to protection under the [LAD] is a novel question of law that involves highly significant policy considerations. Discovery yet to be completed may shed light on the matter,” the court said.

Trevejo's attorney, Deborah Mains, warned that the ruling shouldn't be read as overly broad, especially since it is not published.

“It is a novel issue, but we're not there yet,” said Mains, of Costello & Mains in Mount Laurel. “We don't know what's going to happen at the end of the day.”

LCC's lawyer, Walter Kawalac III of the Mount Laurel office of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, did not return a call seeking comment.