Publications
Alert

New Jersey Expands Retaliation Claims to Events After Termination of Employment

Employment, Benefits & Labor

In a January 2010 decision, Roa v. Roa, the Supreme Court of New Jersey concluded that a former employee was entitled to file suit under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") for an alleged discriminatory act occurring after his termination. In Roa, a husband and wife brought multiple claims of retaliation under LAD against their former employer. In analyzing the claims in light of LAD's two-year statute of limitations period, the Court concluded that the limitations period begins to run on a discrete retaliatory act, including a post-discharge act, on the date that the act takes place. The court further noted that the "continuing violation theory" will not sweep in prior untimely discrete acts (such as the act of discharge itself) which the victim knew or should have known gave rise to a retaliation claim. Therefore, by rejecting the theory, the Court held that the majority of the plaintiffs' claims, including claims relating to the husband's discharge, were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations under LAD. Nevertheless, the Court permitted a discrete post-termination retaliation claim regarding the cancellation of medical insurance to survive as timely. In reaching this conclusion, the court stated that "[t]he fact that [the plaintiff's] insurance cancellation claim is not directly related to his present or future employment is not disqualifying." The Court's decision illustrates the need for employers to be thoughtful and cautious before making decisions regarding former employees.

If you have any questions regarding the Roa decision, the LAD, and/or your Company's policies and practices, please contact a member of Blank Rome LLP's Employment, Benefits and Labor Practice Group

Notice: The purpose of this newsletter is to review the latest developments which are of interest to clients of Blank Rome LLP. The information contained herein is abridged from legislation, court decisions, and administrative rulings and should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.