N.J. Stat. » Title 34 — LABOR AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 34:11-56.2 (2026)

Discrimination in pay based on sex prohibited

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

No employer shall discriminate in any way in the rate or method of payment of wages to any employee because of his or her sex. A differential in pay between employees based on a reasonable factor or factors other than sex shall not constitute discrimination within the meaning of this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Dubowsky v. Stern, Lavinthal, Norgaard & Daly, 922 F. Supp. 985 (D.N.J. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dubowsky v. Stern, Lavinthal, Norgaard & Daly, 922 F. Supp. 985 (D.N.J. 1996). · cites it 4× “2, prohibiting gender-based discrimination in wages: No employer shall discriminate in any way in the rate or method of payment of wages to any employee because of his or her sex. A differential in pay between employees based on a reasonable factor or factors other than sex…”
Fulvio Stanziale v. Lester Jargowsky, Pub. Health Coordinator Cnty. of Monmouth Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Health, 200 F.3d 101 (3rd Cir. 2000). “§ 10:5-12, and the New Jersey Equal Pay Act (NJEPA), N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56.2. The District Court granted summary judgment as to all counts and Stanziale now appeals.”
Mundell v. Acadia Hosp. Corp., 92 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024). “§ 31-75 (a), and New Jersey, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:11-56.2 . See Fairchild v.”
Mcgrath v. Rainbow Pediatrics, P.C. (D.N.J. 2021). · cites it 2× “, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56.2, and the Equal Pay Act 29 U.”
Spiewak v. Wyndham Destinations, Inc. (D.N.J. 2023). “NJEPA Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.2 in connection with her role as Selling Manager.”
Hyra v. Chipotle Servs., LLC (D.N.J. 2025). “§ 34:11-56.2 (West 2024). The NJLAD provides that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual “in compensation or in terms, conditions[,] or privileges of employment” because of the individual’s “sex, gender identity or expression, .”
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.