Since 1995, contingency fee enhancements have been available to successful plaintiffs in NJLAD cases pursuant to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 335 (1995). However, the U.S. Supreme Court has since held that contingency fee enhancements are reserved only for “extraordinary circumstances.” Perdue v. Kenny A., 130 S.Ct. 1662 (2010). In Briel v. Brd. of Educ. of Madison, an unpublished opinion in an NJLAD case, the Appellate Division rejected the employer’s argument that Perdue’s “extraordinary circumstances” requirement applies to NJLAD cases. 2012 WL 443999 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Feb. 14, 2012). In support, the Appellate Division relied upon a recent New Jersey Supreme Court opinion, Walker v. Guiffre, ___ N.J. ___ (2012), which confirmed the continued viability of Rendine (albeit in a Consumer Fraud Act case).

Browse More Insights

Fountain pen signing a document, close view with center focus
Practice Group

Employment Law

Ogletree Deakins’ employment lawyers are experienced in all aspects of employment law, from day-to-day advice to complex employment litigation.

Learn more

Sign up to receive emails about new developments and upcoming programs.

Sign Up Now