Workers' Compensation: Pandemic Justice: Recusal and Essential Employee Rights

The recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision in Amato v. Township of Ocean School District offers crucial insights into two important legal principles: judicial recusal and the definition of essential employees during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Judicial Recusal Dilemma

At the heart of the case was an unprecedented question: Can a judge who previously sponsored a bill as a legislator preside over a case involving that legislation? Judge Joann Downey, who had been an Assembly member from 2016 to 2020 and sponsored the bill creating the essential employee COVID-19 presumption, faced a recusal motion from the school district.

The court's ruling was nuanced. It established that a former legislator is not automatically disqualified from hearing cases related to legislation they previously sponsored. The key considerations include:

1. Judicial Knowledge vs. Bias: The court distinguished between judicial knowledge and actual bias. Judge Downey's familiarity with the law's creation was seen as valuable context, not a disqualifying factor.
2. Impartiality Standard: The court applied a "reasonable person" test, asking whether a fully informed individual would genuinely doubt the judge's impartiality.
3. Preserving Judicial Diversity: The decision recognized that preventing legislators-turned-judges from hearing related cases could unnecessarily limit judicial perspectives.

Essential Employee Status During COVID-19

The case also comprehensively interprets who qualifies as an "essential employee" during the pandemic. For teachers specifically, the court's analysis was particularly noteworthy:

1. Broad Statutory Interpretation: The court emphasized the broad language of the statute, particularly section (4), which allows public authorities to designate essential employees.
2. Multiple Supporting Documents: The court relied on several key documents to support teachers' essential employee status:
- CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) guidance
- New Jersey Office of Emergency Management adoption of CISA guidelines
- Department of Health vaccination plan
- Executive Order 175, which highlighted the critical nature of in-person instruction
3. Procedural Flexibility: The court rejected technical objections about summary judgment procedures, focusing on substantive statutory interpretation instead.

Key Takeaways

1. Judicial recusal is not automatic and requires a nuanced, fact-specific analysis.
2. The definition of "essential employee" during COVID-19 was intentionally broad and adaptable.
3. Courts are willing to look beyond literal statutory language to understand legislative intent.

Practical Implications

For workers' compensation cases involving COVID-19 exposure, this decision:

- Provides a clear framework for determining essential employee status

- Maintains a rebuttable presumption of work-related disease

- Allows employers to challenge the presumption with contrary evidence

The Amato decision represents a critical judicial interpretation of how institutions and workers navigated the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recommended Citation: Gelman, Jon L., Pandemic Justice: Recusal and Essential Employee Rights, www.gelmans.com (11/26/2024)

......

ORDER NOW

....

*Jon L. Gelman of Wayne, NJ, is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters). For over five decades, the Law Offices of Jon Gelman 1.973.696.7900
jon@gelmans.com has represented injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational illnesses and diseases.