On June 19, 2014, the New Jersey Appellate Division relied on language in an employment application that shortened the statute of limitations for certain claims available to the employee against his employer. The Appellate Division upheld the trial court's decision finding that the employment application language was an enforceable contract and rejected the plaintiff's argument that the contract was unconscionable.
In Sergio Rodriguez v. Raymours
Furniture Company, Inc., the plaintiff completed an employment
application for a driver's helper position. Plaintiff was a
native of Argentina, where he obtained an eighth grade education.
Although he came to the United States at age sixteen, twenty years
before applying for employment, he asserted that he had limited
ability to read or speak English. Plaintiff took the application
home with him, where a friend helped translate the document. He
returned the completed application and admittedly did not have any
questions about it.
The application contained a large, bold heading entitled
"Applicant's Statement." Immediately following this
title it stated, in bold and capitalized letters: "READ
CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING – IF YOU ARE HIRED, THE FOLLOWING
BECOMES PART OF YOUR OFFICIAL EMPLOYMENT RECORD AND PERSONNEL
FILE."
Under this statement, also capitalized, it stated the following:
"I AGREE THAT ANY CLAIM OR LAWSUIT RELATING TO MY SERVICE WITH
RAYMOUR & FLANIGAN MUST BE FILED NO MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS
AFTER THE DATE OF THE EMPLOYMENT ACTION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE
CLAIM OR LAWSUIT. I WAIVE ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO THE
CONTRARY."
Plaintiff signed the application and was hired as a driver's
helper. In April 2010, plaintiff was injured on the job and took a
leave of absence. Several days after he returned to full duty, he
was laid off as part of a company-wide reduction in force.
Approximately nine months later, he filed a lawsuit asserting
claims of workers' compensation retaliation and disability
discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination ("LAD"). After discovery, the trial court
granted summary judgment for the employer, finding the complaint
was time-barred based on the language in the employment application
that the plaintiff had signed. Plaintiff appealed.
In its decision, the Appellate Division focused on the fact that
the provision limiting the statute of limitations to six months in
the employment application was clear and conspicuous because it
appeared under a large, bold heading and the paragraph itself was
capitalized. The court noted that the defendant permitted the
plaintiff to take the application home to complete it. The
plaintiff even sought assistance from a friend who was fluent in
English, thus rebutting any claim that he did not understand what
he was signing.
The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that shortening the
time in which he could file suit was contrary to public policy. The
Appellate Division cited a United States Supreme Court case holding
that a limitations period could be shortened contractually as long
as the shorter period was reasonable. New Jersey courts have upheld
this principle in other contexts, and the Appellate Division
expanded it to the employment context in this case.
The court specified that its decision was limited to state law
claims that do not require the exhaustion of administrative
remedies. For federal discrimination claims where a claimant must
first file an administrative charge with the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the EEOC has
exclusive jurisdiction for 180 days, which would prevent an
individual from bringing a lawsuit within a shortened limitations
period. However, since plaintiff in this case only filed state law
claims, the court upheld the requirement that he bring a lawsuit
within six months which he had agreed to by signing his employment
application and dismissed his claim.
This case demonstrates that New Jersey employers may shorten the
amount of time an employee has to file a claim as long as the
amount of time provided is reasonable. Employers should note that
it is important for waiver language to appear in a clear and
conspicuous manner. Employers should also be aware that the
court's ruling is limited to state law claims.
Originally published on the Employer's Law Blog
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
