Calabotta v. Phibro Animal Health, Docket No. A-1576-17T3 (App. Div. June 27, 2019)

New Jersey adopts choice-of-law approach to scope of application of New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

The plaintiff was an Illinois resident who worked for a New Jersey-based employer at their Illinois location. He alleged claims under the NJLAD premised upon his denial of a promotion to a position at the New Jersey headquarters and eventual termination from his position at the Illinois subsidiary. In a decision approved for publication, the appellate panel concluded that the preamble to the statute and its reference to its application to “inhabitants” of the state did not limit the protections to that class of individuals. Instead, the court concluded that the determination of whether a claim falls within the protection of the statute must be made on a case-by-case assessment of the interests of the effected states and based upon the nature of the claim being asserted. The court refused to adopt a “bright line” test premised upon the location where the supposedly discriminatory decision was made.


Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2019

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.