Sergio Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture(074603)
225 N.J. 343, 32 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1598, 138 A.3d 528 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private agreement that shortens the two-year statute of limitations for claims brought under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) is unenforceable because it violates the strong public policy of eradicating discrimination.
Facts:
- In August 2007, Sergio Rodriguez, who was not proficient in English, obtained a job application from Raymours Furniture Company, Inc.
- A friend assisted Rodriguez in filling out the application, which was written in English.
- The application contained a clause requiring that any employment-related lawsuit be filed within six months of the underlying employment action, and explicitly waived any statute of limitations to the contrary.
- Rodriguez signed the application without understanding the terms 'statute of limitations' or 'waive'.
- In mid-September 2007, Raymours hired Rodriguez.
- In April 2010, Rodriguez injured his knee in a work-related accident and temporarily ceased working.
- On October 1, 2010, two days after he returned to full-duty work, Raymours terminated Rodriguez's employment, stating that business was slow.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 5, 2011, Sergio Rodriguez filed a complaint against Raymours Furniture Company in New Jersey Superior Court (the trial court), alleging disability discrimination in violation of the LAD.
- Raymours filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the six-month limitation period in Rodriguez's employment application.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Raymours, enforcing the contractual limitation provision.
- Rodriguez (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of Raymours (appellee).
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Rodriguez's petition for certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a provision in an employment application that contractually shortens the generally applicable two-year statute of limitations for filing a claim under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to six months violate public policy and is it therefore unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice LaVecchia
Yes. A provision in an employment agreement that shortens the statute of limitations for a Law Against Discrimination (LAD) claim is contrary to public policy and unenforceable. The court reasoned that the LAD is not a purely private statute; it serves the significant public purpose of eradicating discrimination, a purpose that cannot be overridden by private contract. The court-established two-year limitations period has been tacitly approved by the legislature and is now an integral part of the LAD's dual-enforcement scheme, which allows a claimant to file either in Superior Court (within two years) or with the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) (within six months). Allowing a contractual reduction to six months for court filings would effectively eliminate the claimant's ability to first pursue an administrative remedy with the DCR and then, if necessary, file a lawsuit, thereby undermining the entire legislative structure and frustrating the public's interest in eliminating discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision elevates the public policy objectives of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) above the principle of freedom of contract in the employment context. It establishes a clear precedent that employers cannot contractually shorten the time for an employee to bring an LAD claim. The ruling protects the integrated, dual-enforcement scheme of the LAD, ensuring that the administrative remedy through the Division on Civil Rights remains a viable first step for aggrieved employees. This will likely invalidate similar waiver provisions in employment contracts throughout New Jersey and reinforce the unique, protected status of statutory anti-discrimination claims.
