Under New Jersey’s statute of limitations, workers generally have two years to file an employment lawsuit. However, employers can amend that deadline by contract, as confirmed by a recent decision by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.
The dispute in Rodriguez v. Raymour Furniture Company, Inc. centers on a two-page application form completed by Plaintiff Sergio Rodriguez (Rodriguez) during his hiring process to become a delivery driver for Raymour Furniture Company, Inc. (Raymour). Rodriguez completed the application with the assistance of a friend, as he contends his ability to read or speak English is limited.
The application stated in capital letters: “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.” It also contained the following warning: “Read carefully before signing—if you are hired, the following becomes part of your official employment record and personnel file.”
After several years on the job, Rodriguez was laid off during a company-wide reduction in force (RIF). While Raymour stated that the employment decision was performance-related, Rodriguez subsequently filed a wrongful termination suit, alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for having filed a workers’ compensation claim and was discriminated against based upon disability, in violation of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
Raymour sought to dismiss the suit on the basis that the complaint was time-barred under the terms of the application. In response, Rodriguez argued that the shortened limitation period was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. The trial court dismissed the suit, noting that parties can validly enter into agreements to limit the time within which lawsuits can be brought “provided that it’s a reasonable limitation, [and] does not violate public policy.”
The Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal. While the panel found the application form was a contract of adhesion, it ultimately concluded that did not make it per se unconscionable and unenforceable. In so ruling, the court highlighted the long line of case law allowing contractual reductions of limitation periods, so long as they are reasonable and not contrary to public policy.
In this case, the court noted that the contract was short and easily understood; further, the clause at issue was conspicuously placed in all capitals, right above the signature line. With regard to Raymour’s bargaining power, the court noted that Rodriguez was “under no compulsion to pursue the application if he was dissatisfied with any of the terms of employment, including the shortened limitation period.”
The court rejected the notion that the deadline was distinguishable from jury waivers and arbitration agreements, which are enforceable in the employment context, because the statutory right being waived eliminates any forum in which to seek a remedy if the contractual limitation period is missed
“This argument presupposes that an individual signing an agreement is not aware of what is in it and therefore would not know when his or her filing deadline would occur,” the opinion states. “An individual who signs an agreement is assumed to have read it and understood its legal effect,” and that is true “even if a language barrier is asserted.”
The Supreme Court of New Jersey will likely have the final say, as Rodriguez has stated he plans to appeal. Please stay tuned for updates.
If you have any questions about the this case or would like to discuss your company’s employment contracts, please contact me, Joel Kreizman, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck Labor and Employment attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Can New Jersey Employers Set Time Limits for Lawsuits?
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
Under New Jersey’s statute of limitations, workers generally have two years to file an employment lawsuit. However, employers can amend that deadline by contract, as confirmed by a recent decision by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.
The dispute in Rodriguez v. Raymour Furniture Company, Inc. centers on a two-page application form completed by Plaintiff Sergio Rodriguez (Rodriguez) during his hiring process to become a delivery driver for Raymour Furniture Company, Inc. (Raymour). Rodriguez completed the application with the assistance of a friend, as he contends his ability to read or speak English is limited.
The application stated in capital letters: “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.” It also contained the following warning: “Read carefully before signing—if you are hired, the following becomes part of your official employment record and personnel file.”
After several years on the job, Rodriguez was laid off during a company-wide reduction in force (RIF). While Raymour stated that the employment decision was performance-related, Rodriguez subsequently filed a wrongful termination suit, alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for having filed a workers’ compensation claim and was discriminated against based upon disability, in violation of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
Raymour sought to dismiss the suit on the basis that the complaint was time-barred under the terms of the application. In response, Rodriguez argued that the shortened limitation period was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. The trial court dismissed the suit, noting that parties can validly enter into agreements to limit the time within which lawsuits can be brought “provided that it’s a reasonable limitation, [and] does not violate public policy.”
The Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal. While the panel found the application form was a contract of adhesion, it ultimately concluded that did not make it per se unconscionable and unenforceable. In so ruling, the court highlighted the long line of case law allowing contractual reductions of limitation periods, so long as they are reasonable and not contrary to public policy.
In this case, the court noted that the contract was short and easily understood; further, the clause at issue was conspicuously placed in all capitals, right above the signature line. With regard to Raymour’s bargaining power, the court noted that Rodriguez was “under no compulsion to pursue the application if he was dissatisfied with any of the terms of employment, including the shortened limitation period.”
The court rejected the notion that the deadline was distinguishable from jury waivers and arbitration agreements, which are enforceable in the employment context, because the statutory right being waived eliminates any forum in which to seek a remedy if the contractual limitation period is missed
“This argument presupposes that an individual signing an agreement is not aware of what is in it and therefore would not know when his or her filing deadline would occur,” the opinion states. “An individual who signs an agreement is assumed to have read it and understood its legal effect,” and that is true “even if a language barrier is asserted.”
The Supreme Court of New Jersey will likely have the final say, as Rodriguez has stated he plans to appeal. Please stay tuned for updates.
If you have any questions about the this case or would like to discuss your company’s employment contracts, please contact me, Joel Kreizman, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck Labor and Employment attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
