Recent Amendments to the NJLAD May Have Unintended Consequences
Senate Bill 121 will have a far-reaching impact on the way in which employers, employees and employment attorneys handle discrimination, retaliation and harassment claims going forward.
August 09, 2019 at 02:00 PM
9 minute read
In the wake of the #MeToo movement, states across the country have started adopting progressive measures designed to protect alleged victims of sexual harassment from being forced into silence through confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, while allowing them to share their stories. These measures also include efforts to protect victims of discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. While noble in intentions, such efforts are causing an equal and opposite reaction amongst employers who are alleged to have engaged in such unlawful acts against their employees or for fostering an environment where such conduct is condoned—even when such allegations are never substantiated by the claimant.
Strategically, employers accused of discrimination, retaliation or harassment by a current or former employee are often times willing to offer the claimant a nominal settlement amount, without any admission of liability, guilt or fault, in order to make the claim “go away” before it hits the newswire or to avoid the high costs associated with litigation. Those settlement agreements, which often include broad releases, would typically also contain confidentiality and/or non-disclosure provisions to ensure that those claims remained under wraps. However, under the recent wave of legislation, employers—including those in New Jersey as of March 2019—are being deprived of this opportunity to quell claims of discrimination, retaliation or harassment through settlement. Employers are similarly being denied the opportunity to enforce arbitration agreements that would otherwise force any such claims to be adjudicated in a private, as opposed to a public, forum. Ultimately, this may have unintended consequences in employment disputes that could undermine the good-natured intentions of the legislature.
NJ’s Amendments to the Law Against Discrimination
New Jersey recently enacted Senate Bill 121 (the “Law”) on March 18, 2019, which amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). These amendments to the NJLAD apply to all contracts and settlement agreements entered into, renewed, modified or amended on or after March 18, 2019. Notably, however, the Law does not apply retroactively as it does not affect agreements entered into before that date.
The Law amends the NJLAD in two important ways. First, the law provides that non-disclosure provisions in “any employment contract or settlement agreement” that have the purpose or effect of concealing “the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment,” are “deemed against public policy and unenforceable” against current and former employees. That is, it renders unenforceable confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements designed to resolve discrimination-, retaliation- or harassment-related claims. As such, the new law renders any mandatory non-disclosure provisions wholly unenforceable.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAre Lead Attorney Relationships More Important Now Than Law Firm Brands?
7 minute readLawyers' Ability to Buy Competitor's Name as Keyword Mulled by NJ Supreme Court
4 minute readNJ Attorney General's Office Announces Major Shake-Up for Executive Leadership Team
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250