As employees continue to work fully remote, courts will be tasked with determining what state discrimination law applies to an employee who does not live or work in the same state as their employer. In grappling with this question with no precedent from New Jersey’s highest court, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the protections of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination reached an out-of-state remote employee who worked for a New Jersey company, even though the employee has never lived or worked in the state. In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion in which they predicted whether an out-of-state remote employee working for a New Jersey-based company was protected by New Jersey’s discrimination laws. See Schulman v. Zoetis, Inc., 2023 WL 4539476 (D.N.J. July 14, 2023).

Schulman, a New Hampshire resident, sued Zoetis, a company headquartered in New Jersey, asserting claims under the federal Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and New Jersey state law. Schulman was hired to work remotely from her home in New Hampshire, and all necessary equipment needed for the role was shipped to Schulman’s home by the company. Throughout her employment, Schulman did not work or step foot in New Jersey, as she conducted all of her work from her home office in New Hampshire. Zoetis moved to dismiss the New Jersey state claims, arguing that Schulman was not protected by New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination because she did not live or work in New Jersey.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has not decided the issue, thus, the New Jersey District Court was tasked with predicting how the New Jersey Supreme Court would rule. Ultimately, the Court held that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination protects out-of-state employees who work for companies based in New Jersey.

The Court focused on five factors in coming to its decision that New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination protects out-of-state remote employees who work for companies based in New Jersey: 

• the Calabotta v. Phibro Animal Health Corp., 460 N.J. Super. 39 (2019) opinion, holding that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination protected nonresident workers and job applicants for New Jersey jobs and companies; 
• the statutory interpretation, specifically, the plain meaning of the words “employer,” “person,” and “individual,” noting that “person” does not read as “person in New Jersey;” 
• analogous New Jersey decisions that permit New Jersey workplace-protection statutes to cover out-of-state employees; 
• federal court’s suggestions that the Law Against Discrimination protects out-of-state employees; and 
• the federal court’s role in following opinions of intermediate appellate state courts. 

Based on this analysis, the Court denied Zoetis’ Motion to Dismiss when it concluded that the New Jersey Supreme Court would likely hold that Schulman was protected by the Law Against Discrimination despite living and working outside of New Jersey.  

With the rise and most likely permanent nature of remote work, issues around what state laws govern and the type of state law claims that can be asserted will continue to arise. While the New Jersey District Court’s decision was specific to the already expansive New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the law continues to develop in the new normal of remote work.