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 of Madison, an unpublished opinion in an NJLAD case, the Appellate Division rejected the employer’s argument that Perdue’s “extraordinary circumstances” requirement applies to NJLAD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).
Employment Law
Availability of Attorneys’ Fees Enhancements Under the NJLAD Reaffirmed
March 7, 2012
