New Jersey Supreme Court affirms Workers' Compensation protections for educators who contracted COVID-19.
On December 11, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Amato v. Township of Ocean School District that has significant implications for educators and essential worker classifications. The case centered on a fundamental question: Are teachers essential employees entitled to workers' compensation protections when they contract COVID-19?
The Tragic Background
Denise Amato, a teacher in the Ocean Township School District, died of respiratory failure as a result of COVID-19. Her husband, Giuseppe Amato, filed a workers' compensation claim, arguing that under N.J.S.A. 34:15-31.11 to .12, his wife was an essential employee and therefore entitled to a rebuttable presumption that her COVID-19 infection was work-related.
What Makes an "Essential Employee"?
At the heart of this case is the statutory definition found in N.J.S.A. 34:15-31.11(4). An "essential employee" means any employee in the public or private sector who, during a state of emergency, is "deemed an essential employee by the public authority declaring the state of emergency."
The critical question: Who decides who is essential, and how?
The Court's Dual Pathway Analysis
In its per curiam opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision and added two important clarifications that strengthen workers' compensation protections for educators.
First Legal Point: Multiple Pathways to Essential Status
The Court's most significant contribution was identifying not one, but two independent pathways through which teachers were designated as essential employees:
Pathway One: OEM and CISA Guidelines
Governor Murphy declared a public health emergency through Executive Order 103 in March 2020, delegating authority to the State Office of Emergency Management (OEM). OEM adopted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) guidance, which explicitly identified teachers as essential employees.
Pathway Two: DOH Vaccination Plans
The Court emphasized an additional basis the Appellate Division had not fully explored: The Governor also delegated authority to the Department of Health (DOH), which issued two separate COVID-19 vaccination plans identifying teachers as "essential employees" and "essential workers."
This dual-pathway approach is crucial. It demonstrates that the essential employee designation wasn't a close call or dependent on a single administrative interpretation. Multiple state agencies, operating under delegated gubernatorial authority, independently recognized teachers' essential status.
Second Legal Point: Procedural Clarity on Summary Decisions
The School District argued it was denied due process because the Judge of Compensation granted summary judgment without requiring personal affidavits. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument, clarifying an important procedural principle.
The Court explained that N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.5(b) only requires affidavits when a motion "relies on facts not of record." Here, the petitioner's motion relied on:
- A notice of motion with legal arguments
- Public documents subject to judicial notice
- Statutory interpretation
Because the legal question of whether teachers were essential employees under the statute required no specific facts regarding the individual teacher's duties, no affidavit was necessary. The essential employee designation applies categorically to all teachers, not based on individual job responsibilities.
The Most Important Holding
While both points are significant, the single most important decision in the Court's opinion is its affirmation of the broad, categorical nature of essential employee designation for teachers. The Court explicitly rejected any notion that essential employee status depends on individual job duties or case-specific facts.
This is found in the Court's statement: "Despite respondent's protestations to the contrary, that legal question required no specific facts regarding decedent's duties."
This holding means that all teachers in New Jersey during the COVID-19 emergency were deemed essential employees for workers' compensation purposes—not just those teaching in-person, not just those in certain subjects, but all teachers. The designation flows from public policy documents that identified the profession as essential, not from individualized assessments.
Key Takeaways
1. Categorical Protection
Teachers across New Jersey are recognized as essential employees during the COVID-19 emergency, regardless of their specific duties or work arrangements.
2. Multiple Sources of Authority
Essential employee status can be established through multiple independent governmental pathways, strengthening the legal foundation for workers' compensation claims.
3. Public Documents Control
The determination of essential employee status is a legal question based on public policy documents, not a factual question requiring case-by-case proof.
4. Rebuttable Presumption
Once classified as essential employees, teachers are entitled to a rebuttable presumption that their COVID-19 infection was work-related, shifting the burden to employers to prove otherwise.
5. Procedural Efficiency
These claims can be resolved through summary proceedings without extensive factual development, providing faster resolution for grieving families.
Broader Implications
The Amato decision has ramifications beyond teachers. The Court's analysis provides a framework for determining essential employee status across professions. Any worker whose occupation was identified as essential by governmental authorities operating under delegated emergency powers during the pandemic may be entitled to similar protections.
The decision also reflects a policy judgment about risk and sacrifice. Teachers, like healthcare workers and first responders, were asked to continue serving the public during a dangerous pandemic. The workers' compensation system, through the essential employee designation, acknowledges that when society asks workers to accept elevated risk for the public good, those workers deserve corresponding legal protections.
A Unanimous Message
The fact that all seven justices joined this per curiam opinion sends a clear message: This is not a close question or a matter of judicial philosophy. It is a straightforward application of statutory language and administrative authority. Teachers were essential during the pandemic, and New Jersey's legal system will honor that designation.
For the Amato family and countless other educators and their loved ones affected by COVID-19, this decision provides legal recognition of a truth already known—teachers were essential workers who served at considerable personal risk. The Supreme Court has ensured that sacrifice will not go unrecognized in the workers' compensation system.
Giuseppe Amato v. Township of Ocean School District, A-31-24 (N.J. Dec. 11, 2025)
Recommended Citation: Gelman, Jon L., Teachers Are Essential Workers, Workers' Compensation, 12/12/2025.
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.
