Savage v. Township of Neptune, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8(a) (“section 12.8”) is a provision of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). Enacted in 2019 during the “#MeToo” movement, that section states that a settlement agreement provision that “has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment (hereinafter referred to as a ‘non-disclosure provision’) shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable. against a current or former employee (hereinafter referred to as an ’employee’) who is a party to ..read more

State v. Higginbotham, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). Earlier this week, as discussed here, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a portion of a regulation due to its overbreadth, which violated the New Jersey Constitution’s free speech guarantee. Chief Justice Rabner authored that opinion. Today, in another unanimous opinion, this one by Justice Wainer Apter, the Court found unconstitutionally overbroad a portion of N.J.S.A. 2C:24(b). The Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division, reported at 475 N.J. Super. 148 (App. Div. 2023), and discussed here. The Appellate Division ..read more

Usachenok v. State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j) is a regulation intended “to protect the integrity of the investigation [of harassment or discrimination in state workplaces], minimize the risk of retaliation . . . , and protect the important privacy interests of all concerned.” Chief Justice Rabner’s opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court yesterday recognized the legitimacy and importance of those goals. But because the regulation contained language, in its final sentence, that was unconstitutionally overbroad in that it “encompasses a sig ..read more

In the second half of April, the Supreme Court issued one published opinion and the Appellate Division delivered four such rulings. Here are summaries: C.R. v. M.T., ___ N.J. ___ (2024). This was the second time that this case came before the Supreme Court. The previous decision was summarized here. This time, in an opinion by Justice Wainer Apter, the Court held that the plain language of the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2) (“SASPA”), creates a standard for a final protective order that is “permissive and easily satisfied.” Affirming the Family Part and the App ..read more

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the summer Part schedule for the Appellate Division. The term “Summer Parts,” which has not been formally used by the courts though others routinely employ it, has always been a slight misnomer, as the period covered does not precisely match the actual summer. For example, this Order covers the period from June 17-September 8. As has been so for the last few years, the summer schedule features panels of four judges, with each panel sitting for two weeks. The total is six panels, headed (in date order) by Judges Currier, Gilson, Sabatin ..read more

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). The ACLU of New Jersey sought five categories of records from defendant (“CPANJ”) under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13 (“OPRA”), and the common law right of access. As summarized here, CPANJ moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, on the grounds that CPANJ is not a “public agency” covered by OPRA, and that CPANJ was not a public entity subject to the common law right of access either. The Appellate Division affirmed in an opinion reported at 4 ..read more

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in five new cases. All of them are civil matters. Three of the cases involved published opinions of the Appellate Division. In D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Under the circumstances presented, is the Archdiocese of Philadelphia subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey?” As discussed here, in an opinion reported at 477 N.J. Super. 370 (App. Div. 2023), the Appellate Division found that New Jersey courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the Dioces ..read more

State v. Jang, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). A party unhappy with a ruling by a Municipal Court may appeal to the Law Division for a trial de novo. As the Supreme Court said in State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138 (2017), “[a]t a trial de novo, the court makes its own findings of fact and conclusions of law but defers to the municipal court’s credibility findings.” The State continues to bear the burden of proof at such a trial. Rule 3:23-4(b) states that “[u]pon the filing of a copy of the notice of appeal, . . . the criminal division manager’s office shall docket the appeal and shall ..read more

On April 1, 1957, the Supreme Court decided Fisch v. Manger, 24 N.J. 66 (1957). The key issue there was whether the practice of additur, under which a trial judge may, after a jury verdict, increase the amount of the verdict rather than ordering a new trial, if the defendant consents. The case involved an auto accident in which plaintiff was seriously injured. A jury awarded him just $3,000. Plaintiff moved for a new trial due to the inadequacy of the jury award. But defendants consented to an increase of the award to $7,500, so the trial judge denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Plaint ..read more

This week, the Appellate Division decided two very different kinds of arbitration matters. Yesterday, Judge Sabatino issued an opinion in Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). That case involved efforts of school districts to discipline or remove tenured teachers or administrators for improper conduct. Until 2012, such matters were handled in administrative hearings. But in 2012, the Legislature replaced that system with an arbitration procedure instead. The “novel issue” before the Appellate Division was “whether, under this revised system, a tenure arbitr ..read more