Employment discrimination litigation and discovery of relevant employment records pose a unique challenge in New Jersey, especially when it affects a plaintiff’s current workplace. In response to this unique situation, New Jersey courts have been able to develop a balanced approach that navigates the need for plaintiffs’ employment records in proving or defending against claims of discrimination, while, at the same time respecting an individual’s right to privacy.
Underpinning the legal landscape for employment discrimination cases in New Jersey are both federal statutes and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). NJLAD is considered among the United States’ most comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, offering extensive protections against employment discrimination. The state’s civil procedure rules align mostly with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and allow for broad discovery of non-privileged documents that are proportional to the needs of the case and relevant to the claims or defenses. These concepts are also true for non-party subpoenas, which are commonly required for this type of discovery.
Discoverability of Employment Records
Courts in New Jersey have repeatedly emphasized the relevance of a plaintiff’s employment records in discrimination litigation. These documents can be crucial for establishing numerous factors:
- The plaintiff’s employment history
- Prior workplace complaints
- Compensation and earnings
- Performance, disciplinary, or attendance issues
- Previous and ongoing requests for workplace accommodations when litigating disability discrimination claims
However, these records often contain sensitive personal information such as salary details, performance evaluations, disciplinary records, and medical information. Consequently, any relevance such information may have is weighed against the plaintiff’s privacy rights.
Relevance and Privacy
The discovery of employment records in discrimination cases involves a balancing test: the demand for the information is weighed against privacy interests, the difficulty of production, and the risk of retaliation. Courts generally require a demonstration that the requests are specifically crafted to what is directly pertinent to the claim or defense. For instance, a request for all of a plaintiff’s current or previous employment records will likely be refused, whereas a request for compensation data would normally be approved.
In the case Boykins v. inVentiv Com. Servs., the defendants subpoenaed the plaintiff’s current employer for the entire employment file of the plaintiff. When the current employer refused, the defendants moved to compel. The court, however, denied the defendants’ application as being too broad and seen as invading the privacy rights of the plaintiff.
Addressing the intersection of employment records and discovery calls for careful navigation due to the complex array of issues it presents. A strategic approach is needed to strike a balance between acquiring necessary evidence and protecting privacy rights. With a clear understanding of the legal principles, challenges, and strategies involved, parties can navigate the discovery process more effectively, ensuring it serves justice without unduly compromising the rights and interests of those involved.
Indeed, the courts in New Jersey have carefully crafted an approach that recognizes the importance of these records when proving or defending against discrimination claims while also safeguarding against unnecessary breaches of privacy. As societal norms and legal standards continue to evolve, New Jersey case law provides valuable insights into ensuring fairness and respect for all parties involved in employment discrimination litigation.
This article was written by August W. Heckman III, a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, with a focus on wage and hour class and collective actions, is available here, and Carlyle Edwards-Balfour, an associate at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, who defends and counsels employers can be found here.
Published on Bloomberg Law.