Sergio Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture(074603)
138 A.3d 528
| N.J. | 2016Background
- In Aug. 2007 Rodriguez signed a Raymour & Flanigan job application containing a bold, capitalized provision requiring any employment-related claim to be filed within six months and waiving contrary statutes of limitations.
- Rodriguez was hired (at-will), later promoted, injured his knee at work in Apr. 2010, and was terminated on Oct. 1, 2010.
- He filed a Superior Court complaint alleging disability discrimination under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) on July 5, 2011 — nearly seven months after termination.
- The employer moved for summary judgment enforcing the six-month contractual limitation; the trial court granted judgment for the employer and the Appellate Division affirmed.
- The NJ Supreme Court granted certification and reversed, holding that a private contract shortening the two-year limitations period for a private LAD action to six months is unenforceable as contrary to LAD public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of 6‑month waiver limiting time to sue for LAD claims | Rodriguez: the 6‑month clause is unconscionable and unlawfully curtails LAD rights, including access to the DCR administrative remedy | Raymours: parties may contractually shorten statutes of limitations absent an express statutory prohibition; the clause was clear and reasonable | Court: unenforceable — private shortening of the two‑year court limitations for LAD claims frustrates LAD’s public purpose and is contrary to public policy |
| Interaction with LAD dual‑remedy scheme (DCR vs. Superior Court) | Rodriguez: six months forecloses meaningful use of the DCR process and the legislatively intended two‑year court outer limit | Raymours: plaintiffs may choose either forum and the DCR filing period is also six months, so no substantive loss | Court: shortening undermines the integrated LAD scheme, divests access to administrative remedy, and frustrates legislative design |
| Argument that the clause is unconscionable (contract‑of‑adhesion) | Rodriguez: application was take‑it‑or‑leave‑it; plaintiff lacked English proficiency and bargaining power — procedural and substantive unconscionability | Raymours: clause was clear, unambiguous and conspicuous; applicant had time to review | Court: although decision rests on public‑policy grounds, unconscionability concerns would likewise support refusing enforcement given adhesion and public‑interest impact |
| Novation / effect on related retaliation (workers’ comp) claim | Rodriguez: later application lacking clause constituted novation, or at least fact issue for jury | Raymours: no novation; clause remained binding | Court: did not reach novation because LAD holding resolved the case; noted that derivative workers’ compensation retaliation claims also not salvaged by the waiver if they depend on LAD action |
Key Cases Cited
- Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (N.J. 1993) (adopted two‑year limitations period for LAD actions)
- Eagle Fire Prot. Corp. v. First Indem. of Am. Ins. Co., 145 N.J. 345 (N.J. 1996) (parties may contractually shorten statutes of limitations in some contexts)
- Mirra v. Holland Am. Line, 331 N.J. Super. 86 (App. Div. 2000) (applied principle that limitations periods can be shortened by contract)
- Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76 (N.J. 2002) (statutory claims may be submitted to alternative forums by contract but substantive rights remain)
- Pfeifer v. Fed. Express Corp., 304 P.3d 1226 (Kan. 2013) (refusing to enforce six‑month contractual limitation for retaliation claim as contrary to public policy)
- Ellis v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., 169 Cal. Rptr. 3d 752 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (refusing to enforce similar six‑month limitation in employment application)