New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 10:5-1 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This act shall be known as "Law Against Discrimination."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,153 cases (452 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Maryanne Grande v. Saint Clare’s Health Sys. (076606) (Morris Cnty. & Statewide), 164 A.3d 1030 (N.J. 2017).
Maryanne Grande v. Saint Clare’s Health Sys. (076606) (Morris Cnty. & Statewide), 164 A.3d 1030 (N.J. 2017). · cites it 3× “In this action brought under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, the Court determines whether the Appellate Division correctly reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Saint Clare’s Health System and against…”
Brian Royster v. New Jersey State Police(075926), 152 A.3d 900 (N.J. 2017). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff asserted that the NJSP failed to make reasonable accommodations for his disabling medical condition -- ulcerative colitis -– in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42, and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),…”
Daniel Tumpson v. James Farina (072813), 95 A.3d 210 (N.J. 2014). · cites it 2× “Statement to S. No. 1558, 211th Leg. 1 (May 6, 2004).”
Brown v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 560 F. Supp. 391 (D.N.J. 1983). · cites it 7× “He also charged defendants with slander, libel, and violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. Originally named as defendants were FDU, located in Rutherford, New Jersey, twenty-nine individual employees of FDU, and a private investigating…”
Ilda Aguas v. State of New Jersey (072467), 107 A.3d 1250 (N.J. 2015). · cites it 3× “On March 10, 2010, two days after the EED commenced its investigation, plaintiff filed this action alleging that McClish and Hill subjected her to a hostile work environment based on her gender, and that the State retaliated against her because of her objections to that…”
State v. Ivonne Saavedra (073793), 117 A.3d 1169 (N.J. 2015). · cites it 2× “The Quinlan case, arising from a plaintiff employee’s claim that her employment was terminated after she took documents belonging to her employer and used them in her employment discrimination litigation, concerned the legal standard that governs certain retaliation claims under…”
Doe v. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs., 148 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D.N.J. 2001). · cites it 2× “In Count II, the plaintiffs assert a cause of action against Capital Health Systems, Potako and Loeb under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-1 , et seq. (“NJLAD”).”
Richard Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3rd Cir. 2004). “1980), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-1 et seq., (“NJLAD”).”
Paula Maliandi v. Montclair State Univ., 845 F.3d 77 (3rd Cir. 2016). “Maliandi’s state law claim arises under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 10:5-1 to -49, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination on account of a disability or handicap.”
Reed Waldron v. Sl Indus., Inc. Sl-Waber, Inc., 56 F.3d 491 (3rd Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1 et seq., to prove both that his employer’s reasons for terminating him were false and that the real reason for termination was discrimination.”
The Ivy Club v. W. Cary Edwards Pamela S. Poff, Sally Frank, Intervenor-Defendant. Sally Frank, Counter-Claimant v. The Ivy Club, Counter-Defendant, 943 F.2d 270 (3rd Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “Frank alleged that the Clubs and Princeton University discriminated on the basis of sex in places of public accommodation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. 6 The Division initially refused to process Frank's complaint,…”
Morris v. Siemens Components, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 486 (D.N.J. 1996). · cites it 6× “one yet to be resolved by the Third Circuit: whether an employee who alleges that her discharge from employment at the conclusion of a ninety-day medical leave, the maximum period of medical leave allowed by her employer’s medical leave of absence policy, is judicially estopped…”
— N.J. Stat. § 10:5-1(a) — 1 case
Viggiano v. New Jersey, 136 F. App'x 515 (3rd Cir. 2005).
— N.J. Stat. § 10:5-1(d) — 1 case
Cruz v. Trane Inc. (D.N.J. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.