On September 25, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that is poised to set significant precedent for workers' compensation law. Giuseppe Amato v. Township of Ocean School District (Docket A-31-24).
The case centers on the dependency claim filed by the widower of a school teacher who tragically died of COVID-19 after returning to in-person instruction as she complied with The Governor's Executive Order to return work in the classroom. The Supreme Court's review focuses on a highly contentious legal question: the scope of New Jersey's COVID-19 Essential Employee Presumption..
Who Is an "Essential Employee"?
The core of the workers' compensation claim rests on N.J.S.A. 34:15-31.12, which creates a rebuttable presumption that an essential employee’s contraction of COVID-19 during a public health emergency is work-related. The Township of Ocean School District argues that the deceased teacher was not an essential employee, thus negating the presumption.
Arguments of Counsel
Counsel for Amato (Petitioner): The petitioner's counsel vigorously defended the Appellate Division’s ruling, arguing for a broad, remedial interpretation of the statute to fulfill the legislative intent of protecting public-facing workers during the pandemic.
Reliance on Agency Guidance: The key argument centered on the statute’s catch-all provision, which includes "any other employee deemed an essential employee by the public authority declaring the state of emergency" (Section 4). Counsel pointed to Executive Orders and guidance from the federal CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency), which was adopted by the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management, explicitly listing K-12 teachers as essential workers.
Policy and Context: Counsel emphasized that schools were mandated to reopen for in-person instruction, placing teachers in unavoidable physical proximity to students and colleagues, making their work "essential to the public's health, safety, and welfare."
Counsel for the Township (Respondent): The Township's counsel urged the Court to apply a stricter, narrower construction of the workers' compensation statute.
Plain Language: The main contention was that because teachers are not explicitly enumerated in the statute, the lower courts erred by relying on external agency guidance to broaden the definition retroactively. They argued that relying on non-binding federal guidelines subverts the Legislature's intent.
Rebuttal Right: Counsel also emphasized that while the presumption is powerful, the employer must retain a meaningful ability to rebut it by demonstrating that the exposure was more likely non-work-related.
Issues Highlighted by the Justices
The Justices dedicated significant time probing the limits of the "essential employee" definition, demonstrating their intent to draw a clear line for future COVID-19 claims.
Deference to Agencies: Several Justices pressed both sides on the level of deference the Court owes to CISA and OEM guidance. To what extent should executive declarations or agency documents from a time of emergency dictate the permanent interpretation of a workers' compensation statute?"
Defining the Boundary: Questions focused on the policy implications—if teachers are deemed essential under this broad reading, what professions aren't?
Outlook: Awaiting the Landmark Decision
The oral arguments confirmed that Amato is a landmark case challenging two critical pillars of New Jersey law. The Court must navigate the delicate balance between expanding protections for essential employees and maintaining the structural integrity of the judiciary.
The Court's eventual opinion will provide definitive guidance on:
The proper methodology for classifying essential employees under New Jersey's COVID-19 workers' compensation framework impacts thousands of unresolved clai
All eyes now turn to Trenton as the Justices deliberate a decision that will shape New Jersey's post-pandemic legal landscape.
- A-31-24 Brief in Support of Motion Letter
- A-31-24 Answering Brief Letter
- A-31-24 Amicus Curiae Brief Levinson Axelrod PA
- A-31-24 Amicus Curiae Brief Pellettieri Rabstein Altman
- A-31-24 Amicus Curiae Brief Zazzali Law
- A-31-24 Appellant Response to Amicus Brief Letter
Recommended Citation: Gelman, Jon, NJ Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Landmark Case (10/05/2025) https://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/2025/10/nj-supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments.html
Blog: Workers' Compensation
LinkedIn: JonGelman
LinkedIn Group: Injured Workers Law & Advocacy Group
Author: "Workers' Compensation Law" West-Thomson-Reuters
Mastodon:@gelman@mstdn.social
Blue Sky: jongelman@bsky.social
© 2025 Jon L Gelman. All rights reserved.
Attorney Advertising
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
