Vasquez v. Glassboro Service Association, Inc.
415 A.2d 1156, 83 N.J. 86 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A farm labor service may not use self-help to evict a migrant farmworker from employer-provided housing upon termination of employment. Due to the unconscionable nature of the employment contract and public policy, the employer must seek dispossession through a judicial proceeding, where a court can grant equitable relief.
Facts:
- Glassboro Service Association (Glassboro), a non-profit corporation, employed Natividad Vasquez, a migrant farmworker from Puerto Rico, under a standardized contract.
- The contract, negotiated with the Puerto Rican Department of Labor, required Glassboro to provide living quarters for workers, which consisted of barracks-style housing at a labor camp.
- Vasquez resided in these barracks with approximately 30 other men and was not charged a separate fee for rent.
- On July 19, 1976, Glassboro's foreman terminated Vasquez's employment for unsatisfactory work.
- Immediately following a brief hearing on the same day, the foreman ordered Vasquez to collect his belongings and leave the labor camp.
- Vasquez did not speak English, had no funds, and had nowhere else to live, but his request to stay overnight was refused despite vacant beds in the barracks.
Procedural Posture:
- Natividad Vasquez filed a complaint against Glassboro Service Association in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division (trial court), seeking to be reinstated to his living quarters.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Vasquez, finding he qualified as a tenant under state law and ordering his reinstatement.
- Glassboro, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to review the decision of the Appellate Division.
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 farm labor service that provides housing to a migrant farmworker as a condition of employment have the right to use self-help to dispossess the worker immediately upon termination of employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
No. A farm labor service may not use self-help and must proceed in a judicial action to dispossess a farmworker who remains in possession of his living quarters after termination of his employment. Although a migrant farmworker is not a 'tenant' under the state's summary dispossess statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(m)), the employment contract is a contract of adhesion due to the gross inequality of bargaining power between the labor service and the worker. The contract's failure to provide a worker with a reasonable opportunity to find alternative housing after termination is unconscionable and violates public policy. Therefore, the court implies a term into the contract requiring a reasonable period for the worker to find shelter and mandates that dispossession occur only through a judicial proceeding where a court can fashion an equitable remedy.
Analysis:
This decision extends judicial protection to a vulnerable population not explicitly covered by landlord-tenant statutes. By using the doctrine of unconscionability and public policy to reform a contract of adhesion, the court creates a common-law protection against self-help evictions for employees whose housing is tied to their job. It signals that courts will look beyond traditional legal categories like 'tenant' or 'employee' to find fair solutions based on the realities of the parties' relationship, particularly where a significant power imbalance exists. This precedent requires employers who provide essential housing to use judicial processes for eviction, allowing for judicial oversight and equitable remedies.
