Pashman Stein Walder Hayden P.C. Named New Jersey Law Journal’s Law Firm of the Year 2023*

PDF

Small Print Weighs Big

1.28.15

In June of last year, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court issued what many considered a surprising decision. In Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Corporation, 436 N.J. Super 305 (App.Div. 2014) the court held that the two year statute of limitations for claims of retaliatory discharge and disability discrimination can be modified by agreement.

In August 2007 Mr. Rodriguez submitted an application for employment with Raymour & Flanigan. Just above the application signature line the applicant is advised to read the application carefully, that it will become part of his employment record. It went on to say, in all capital letters that “any claim or lawsuit relating to my service with Raymour & Flanigan must be filed no more than six (6) months after…the subject of the claim or lawsuit.” It specifically waived any contrary statute of limitations.

On April 5, 2010, Rodriguez was injured on the job. He returned to unrestricted duties on September 28, 2010. On October 1, 2010, he was laid off, along with 101 others, as part of a reduction in force. Rodriguez claimed retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim and discrimination because of his disability. He filed suit nine months after the alleged wrongful termination. His suit was dismissed because of the six month limitation.

The court thoroughly examined several legal issues involved. Among the more critical, the court determined:

1. The application that created the six month limitation was a contract of adhesion, it was part of a non-negotiable form;

2. The two year statute of limitations can be modified if the limitation period is reasonable and does not violate public policy;

3. The provision was not unconscionable. It was set forth in large type, clearly, and Rodriguez was under no time pressure to sign (he took it home before signing). Therefore, notwithstanding that it was an adhesive provision, it was enforceable.

As I said at the outset, many were surprised at this result, but stay tuned, the New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision.

Related Attorneys

Related Practice Areas

Jump to Page

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden P.C. Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek