End of Bar on Non-disclosure Provisions in LAD Settlements: Why Both Sides Will Rejoice
Assembly Bill No. 4637 is an attempt to remedy the shortcomings of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(a). It allows employees to decide for themselves whether being able to talk publicly and openly about allegations of discrimination against their employer is more important to them than being able to settle a case.
March 10, 2022 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Since 2019, New Jersey employers have had difficult decisions to make when confronted with lawsuits from employees alleging claims arising under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50 (the LAD). Specifically, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8, enacted on March 18, 2019, mandates in relevant part that "[a] provision in any … settlement agreement which has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment … shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable against a current or former employee … who is a party to the … settlement." See N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(a). This statute otherwise stipulates that if an employee were to "reveal[] sufficient details of the claim so that the employer is reasonably identifiable, then the non-disclosure provision shall also be unenforceable against the employer." See ibid.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllDispute Over Failure to Accommodate Disability Ends in $900K Settlement
3 minute readInsurer Has No Duty to Defend 'Laidlow' Claims, NJ Supreme Court Says
3 minute readNJ Workers Can't Sue for Alleged Employment Discrimination Over Marijuana Use, 3rd Circuit Rules
4 minute readUnion Leader Awarded $662K Judgment Against Employer in Decade-Old Wiretap Suit
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Takes Up TikTok's Challenge to Upcoming Ban or Sale
- 2State High Court Bucks Trend Favoring Insurers, Sides With Restaurants Seeking COVID-19 Coverage
- 3Remote Proceedings: A Gift for the Holidays
- 4Contested Engineer Cleared to Testify in Defective Pistol Suit, Federal Judge Rules
- 5How I Made Partner: 'Don’t Be Scared to Be Ambitious,' Says Aya Eguchi of Morrison Foerster
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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