NJ Supreme Court Broadens Scope of LAD’s “Marital Status” Protection

On June 21, 2016, in Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad, the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed the scope of the marital status protection afforded to employees by the Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The Court ruled that the LAD’s marital status provision is not limited to the state of being single or married but protects employees who have announced “they will marry, have separated, have initiated divorce proceedings or have obtained a divorce.”

Background
From 1998 until 2006, Robert Smith was employed by the Millville Rescue Squad (“MRS”) as its Director of Operations. His wife was also an MRS employee. In 2005, he began an extramarital affair with a volunteer under his direct supervision. His wife learned of the affair and informed the CEO of the MRS, who was Smith’s direct supervisor. The volunteer subsequently left the MRS, but the affair continued. After leaving his marital home, Smith informed the CEO that his marriage had collapsed. During a February 2006 meeting, the CEO told Smith he had “had eight months to make things right with [his] wife[,]” that “he did not think there was any chance of reconciliation . . . and that he believed there would be an ‘ugly divorce.” The CEO informed Smith he would bring the issue before the MRS’s Board of Directors. Shortly thereafter, the MRS terminated Smith’s employment.

In his lawsuit against the MRS, Smith alleged, among other things, that his termination was due to his “marital status” and was therefore in violation of the LAD. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding that Smith presented proof only that he was terminated because management was concerned about the likelihood of an ugly or messy divorce, which proof did not give rise to a marital status discrimination claim. The Appellate Division reversed, “interpret[ing] ‘marital status’ to include the states of being divorced, engaged to be married, separated, and involved in divorce proceedings[,]” and finding that “plaintiff had established a prima facie case of discrimination based on a change in the status of his relationship ‘from married to soon-to-be-divorcing[.]’”

The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The LAD does not define “marital status” and thus the “threshold issue” for the Court was “whether the LAD’s prohibition against discrimination based on marital status extends to employees who have separated from their spouses and are in the process of obtaining a divorce.” In the course of deciding this issue, the Court put forth a broad definition of “marital status,” concluding that it should be interpreted to protect those who are single or married and all those who are in transition from one state to another. The Court made statements throughout its opinion indicating that the LAD’s marital status protection extends from those who have never married or are merely considering marriage to those who are confronting the death of a spouse or have recently been widowed. Interestingly, the Court suggested that discrimination allegations brought by a divorced employee will be greater “if the estranged spouse or the spouse’s friends and family are employed by the same employer[.]”

The Court’s holding is limited in an important respect—an employer is not prevented from disciplining or terminating an employee whose work performance is actually affected by his or her marital status. “For example, the LAD does not prohibit an employer from firing an employee who is engaged in a dispute—marital or otherwise—that has become so contentious that it interferes with [his/her] or other employees’ ability to carry out their work.” According to the Court, its decision is meant only to prohibit employers “from engaging in commonplace stereotypes[:]” for example, “that a single employee is not committed to his career or that an engaged employee will be distracted by wedding preparations, or that a divorcing employee will be distracted from his job and even disruptive in the workplace[.]” With regard to Smith’s case specifically, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence in the record from which the jury could conclude that Smith’s marital problems with his co-employee wife had not caused any workplace disruption and that his termination was the result of his “marital status” as broadly defined by the Court.

The Court also took pains to point out that its decision should not be interpreted to invalidate anti-nepotism policies, which the Court characterized as legitimate business decisions.

Conclusion
The Smith decision is consistent with the broad interpretation given the LAD by the Supreme Court when a plaintiff alleges discrimination based on his or her membership in a protected classification that lacks precise definition. As the Court itself explained, “even novel arguments” will “require our utmost care and attention in order that we may be steadfast in our efforts to effectuate the Legislature’s goal of workplace equality[.]”

For answers to any questions regarding this blog, or the Law Against Discrimination generally, please feel free to contact an attorney in the Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department.