“Submit your employment documents including your employee handbook so that we can perform a legal review.” This statement is something of a common refrain that business lawyers and commercial attorneys offer day-in and day-out. And yet, clients are hesitant to turn over their employment forms and paperwork for a variety of reasons ranging from “I’ve never had a problem with these forms before” to “These employments papers are just a formality anyway.” Regardless of the justification that is offered, it is clear that the business owner does not realize the full extent of problems and liabilities that can be created by unclear or contradictory employment documents. Unfortunately the luck of business owners or managers who routinely rely on excuses like these eventually runs out. Then they are faced with difficult and costly legal situations that, with adequate due diligence, could have and should have been prevented.
Such appears to be the situation in Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co. where the New Jersey Supreme Court has announced its intention to review the appellate court’s decision. In this matter, Sergio Rodriguez was hired by Raymour & Flanigan. In his employment agreement, above the signature line but below a bold-face statement setting forth this paperwork as an “official employment record”, the following statement appeared in capital lettering:
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.
Rodriguez signed the documents with the assistance of a friend. He claims that since English is not his first language a friend helped him complete the documents. The friend, however, only read the parts that Rodriguez would have to complete. Thus, Rodriguez claims, the foregoing provision was never read and he did not have any knowledge of it.
Rodriguez was subsequently laid-off in a reduction-in-force (RIF) with the stated reasons of poor work performance shortly after returning from workers’ compensation due to a torn meniscus. Rodriquez alleges that the termination was actually discrimination due to his disability and unlawful retaliation in response to his workers’ compensation claim. He filed suit under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
Can language in an employment contract reduce an employee’s time limit to bring a claim?
In New Jersey, and in many other states, it is fundamental that parties may freely bargain for their interests and concerned in an employment relationship. It is extremely common for employment agreements and other types of agreements to contain provisions that will govern potential areas of disagreement should a dispute arise. These may include:
- Arbitration clause
- Mediation clause
- Limitation on the right to jury trial
- Requirements to engage in an internal review process or internal investigation
What we have in this instance is a clause that is intended to reduce the statute of limitations to bring a claim for disputes arising out of an employment relationship from 2 years to 6 months. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant at the trial court which was affirmed at the appellate level. The appellate court found that although the employment agreement was a contract of adhesion, the limiting provision was effective because the agreement was not unconscionable. The appellate court found that procedural unconscionability, or lack of fairness in the process of its acceptance, was minimal because the language was “clear and conspicuous.” The court also determined that substantive unconscionability was minimal because the contractual limit appeared to be reasonable and was not incompatible with the state’s public policy goals.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take the case after the matter was dismissed on summary judgment and affirmed unanimously at the appellate level may indicate some level of concern in the court regarding the ruling. Perhaps most troubling is the plaintiff’s claim that his limited English language skills prevented him from understanding and appreciating the limitation of his rights. The appearance that substantive rights were cut-off by procedural limitations may cause the NJ Supreme Court to consider the remedies that would have been available. In this instance having an application available in Spanish – the second most commonly spoken language in the nation – would have thwarted all of plaintiff’s claims regarding a lack of knowledge regarding the provision. If the New Jersey Supreme Court determines that workers hired for this position typically only speak Spanish or that job duties were carried out in Spanish, the court may determine that plaintiff was unconscionably deprived of his right to bring a claim.
Do you know what’s in your employment paperwork?
New Jersey Courts will often respect the freely-bargained duties and obligations an employer may bargain for. But, if you are not sure as to exactly what is contained within your employment documentation, you aren’t taking full advantage of your rights or you may even be acting against your own business interests. At the Jayson Law Group, LLC our experienced business attorneys can provide reliable guidance regarding your employment practices compliance with New Jersey and federal regulations including ADA. This guidance typically begins with a meticulous review of all currently existing policies, practices and documents. Pro-active compliance work and legal review can save your business in litigation costs while protecting its reputation. To schedule your free and confidential consultation, call 908-768-3633 or contact us online today.