Thank you for your interest in Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A.’s legal blogs. You will receive an email sent to the address entered in order to confirm your subscription. Please watch for it and click the link to confirm your subscription.
New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination May Protect Non-Resident Telecommuting Employees?
The New Jersey Appellate Division, in an unpublished decision, ruled that an out-of-state resident working remotely for a New Jersey based company may be afforded the comprehensive protections of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
The plaintiff lives in Massachusetts and works remotely for a Haddonfield-based company. The plaintiff herself never lived in New Jersey and only visited the company‘s headquarters on a few occasions. She worked remotely on the company’s computer systems, had a company issued cell phone and had health insurance through her employer. When she sought relief under the state’s LAD, the New Jersey Appellate Division said she is entitled to prove her ties to New Jersey and to prove she is an individual who can avail herself of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination statute.
The Court said “nowhere in the Law Against Discrimination statute is the term inhabitant defined or otherwise expressed,” and while the LAD categorizes various protected classes of plaintiffs, the specific language of the LAD provides that it was created to “prohibit unlawful employment practices and unlawful discrimination against ‘any individual.’”
Note that this is only an initial, unpublished decision and issued before discovery. In light of strong public policy against discriminatory practices, the issue regarding protections for non-resident, telecommuting employees working for New Jersey companies is undoubtedly far from over.
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the time of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.
Significant Changes to New Jersey’s Unemployment Compensation Law Will Take Effect on July 31, 2023
Employer Alert: Banning Recording in the Workplace Could Infringe on Employee Rights
Is it the End of Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions in Severance Agreements?