U.S. Senior District Judge William Martini of the District of New Jersey.

A federal judge has turned back an effort to establish retroactive application of a young state statute aimed at stamping out gender pay disparity in the workplace.

In Perrotto v. Morgan Advanced Materials, U.S. District Judge William Martini of the District of New Jersey dismissed two counts lodged under the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act. Signed into law last spring and effective last July 1, the law, which amended the state Law Against Discrimination, prohibits unequal pay for “substantially similar” work, imposes a six-year statute of limitations on violations, and imposes treble damages, among other elements.

Plaintiff Darla Perrotto claims in the suit that, in her job as controller and human resources professional in the New Jersey office of Morgan Advanced Materials for a little less then five years, the company paid female employees less for “substantially similar work” and retaliated against her for raising an issue. She was terminated on April 5, 2018, about three weeks before the EPA's enactment, and almost three months before its July 1 effective date, according to the decision.

Perrotto filed her suit in Superior Court weeks after the effective date, and the case was removed to federal court. Morgan Advanced Materials moved to dismiss the two counts lodged under the EPA for failing to state a claim, because the alleged violations occurred before the statute took effect. Perrotto contended that the statute was intended to be applied retroactively, while the defendants challenged that contention.

“The Court agrees with Defendants,” Martini wrote in his decision Tuesday, noting a “strong presumption against retroactivity” except in circumstances of legislative intent, curative measures, and reasonable expectations of the parties.

There was no express or implied intent by lawmakers to apply the law retroactively, because the effective date was postponed, he said. “This delayed enactment shows the Legislature intended NJEPA to have prospective application only,” Martini wrote, pointing to the New Jersey Supreme Court's 1991 opinion in Twiss v. State.

A curative measure can be applied retroactively, but the EPA “cures nothing through amendment,” Martini said. “Retroactive application would not be curative here because this is a 'first of its kind' statute addressing pay equity for performing 'substantially similar work,'” he wrote. “Contrary to carrying out or simply explaining [the Law Against Discrimination]'s original intent, NJEPA introduced expanded employee protections.”

He added, “In all, there lacks evidence showing the Legislature sought to explain or clarify existing law.”

Martini also said the “reasonable expectations of the parties fails to support retroactive application,” noting that three months elapsed between the end of the alleged conduct and the statute's effective date.

The judge dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding that amending them would not change the outcome.

Perrotto is represented by Ty Hyderally of Hyderally & Associates in Montclair; the defendants, by Steven Luckner of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart in Morristown. Neither returned a call seeking comment.

The Legislature was nearly unanimous in approving the measure, modeled after the federal Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2009, last year. Similar measures had gone to Gov. Chris Christie's desk in years past, but he returned them unsigned, citing concerns over the six-year filing period, and the effect it could have on businesses in the state. Gov. Phil Murphy said before signing the measure that its provisions were particularly important in addressing gender pay disparity among minority women.