DAVID F. CALABOTTA VS. PHIBRO ANIMAL HEALTH CORPORATION (L-1979-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
213 A.3d 210
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2019Background
- Plaintiff, an Illinois resident employed by Prince Agri (a Phibro subsidiary in Quincy, IL), alleges Phibro (headquartered in Teaneck, NJ) refused to consider him for a Senior VP position based in New Jersey and later terminated him; he claims associational discrimination under the NJLAD because his wife was terminally ill.
- Plaintiff signed employment-related forms (2008) and was presented an unsigned Separation Agreement (2016) that referenced New Jersey law; the agreements contained New Jersey choice-of-law language for those documents.
- Trial court dismissed the NJLAD claims with prejudice, holding NJLAD does not apply to out-of-state employees; plaintiff appealed.
- Central legal questions: (1) whether NJLAD can protect nonresidents despite the preamble referencing "inhabitants," and (2) whether choice-of-law principles favor New Jersey or Illinois law for the failure-to-promote and wrongful-discharge claims.
- Appellate court held NJLAD can extend to certain nonresidents but application depends on Second Restatement choice-of-law factors; reversed dismissal as to failure-to-promote (NJ law applies) and vacated/remanded wrongful-discharge choice-of-law for further fact development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of NJLAD: whether "inhabitants" in preamble limits coverage to NJ residents | NJLAD is remedial and broad; operative provisions protect "any person," so it can cover nonresidents | Preamble language referring to "inhabitants" shows NJLAD intended for NJ residents only | Court: Preamble does not limit NJLAD; operative text and policy support coverage of some nonresidents |
| Whether NJLAD constitutes a statutory choice-of-law directive preempting other states' laws | Plaintiff/amicus: NJLAD protections should override conflicting out-of-state law for claims implicating NJ interests | Defendants: No statutory mandate; choice-of-law requires multi-factor analysis and interstate comity | Court: No statutory directive in NJLAD; apply Second Restatement factors to resolve conflicts |
| Choice-of-law for failure-to-promote (position located in NJ) | Phibro's decision and the job were centered in NJ; NJ law should govern applicants for NJ positions | Defendants: Plaintiff worked in IL; employment-based claims should be governed by plaintiff's workplace law (IL) | Court: Most-significant-relationship factors favor NJ for the failure-to-promote claim; reverse dismissal |
| Choice-of-law for wrongful discharge (employee worked and lived in IL) | NJ law may apply if termination decision was centered in NJ | Defendants: IL law governs because plaintiff worked and was terminated from IL office | Court: Record is insufficient; remand for further fact development to apply Second Restatement factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Buccilli v. Timby, Brown & Timby, 283 N.J. Super. 6 (App. Div. 1995) (held out-of-state employment claims governed by law of state where employment and alleged wrongful conduct occurred)
- Camp Jaycee v. Goldberg, 197 N.J. 132 (2008) (adopted Second Restatement most-significant-relationship test for tort choice-of-law)
- In re Accutane Litig., 235 N.J. 229 (2018) (applied Second Restatement factors to multi-state product liability cases)
- McCarrell v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 227 N.J. 569 (2017) (discussed predictable, uniform choice-of-law rules and application of Second Restatement)
- Scheeler v. Atlantic City Mun. Joint Ins. Fund, 454 N.J. Super. 621 (App. Div. 2018) (interpreted preamble language and statutory scope in OPRA; analogized to NJLAD preamble issue)
- O'Lone v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 313 N.J. Super. 249 (App. Div. 1998) (recognized associational discrimination under NJLAD)
- Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76 (2002) (requirements for enforceable contractual choice-of-law provisions)