New Jersey Court Approves Contract That Limits Employee’s Time To Bring Discrimination Claim

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled on June 19, 2014 that an employee is bound by his agreement in an employment application to a six-month limitation period to file any suit against his employer. In Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc.1, the court granted summary judgment for furniture retailer Raymour & Flanigan, dismissing a discrimination suit filed eight months after the employee was fired, even though the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJ LAD) carries a two-year statute of limitations.

In 2007, Raymour & Flanigan hired the plaintiff, Sergio Rodriguez, as a customer delivery assistant. As part of the application process, Rodriguez completed and signed an employment application, which provided in part: "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 limitation to the contrary." In 2010, Raymour and Flanigan promoted Rodriguez to a driver position, and Rodriguez completed a second application that did not contain any language limiting the statute of limitations time period. Shortly thereafter, Rodriguez injured his knee at work, for which he underwent surgery. Rodriguez returned to work, first on light duty and two weeks later to unrestricted work. Three days after his return to unrestricted work, Raymour & Flanigan instituted a reduction in force, laying off 102 workers including Rodriguez. According to the company, Rodriguez was selected for the reduction in force because of substandard performance. Nine months later, Rodriguez filed a complaint against his former employer, alleging retaliation for having filed a workers compensation claim and discrimination on the basis of his disability, in violation of the NJ LAD.

The company moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims on the basis of the contractual statute of limitations found in the first employment application filled out and signed by Rodriguez. The Appellate Division agreed, rejecting Rodriguez's argument that the statute of limitations provision was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable, stating:

The disputed contract provision was not buried in a large volume of documents. It was contained in a two-page application and set forth very conspicuously in bold oversized print and capital lettering, just above the applicant's signature line. The...