New Jersey Appellate Court Clarifies NJFLA Protections in Recent Decision

When your employer denies you a leave to care for a loved one, it can feel like you are being forced to choose between your job and your family. Fortunately, New Jersey law provides strong protections for employees under the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). However, as a recent appellate decision illustrates, not all employers take these rights seriously. In the case, Hyra v. Chipotle Services, a federal court in New Jersey weighs in on a case in which the employer was alleged to have terminated a pregnant employee for exercising her rights under the NJFLA.

The Facts of the Case

Angela Hyra began working for Chipotle in 2017. Chipotle promoted her multiple times, eventually making her a general manager. She had no history of disciplinary action during her nearly seven-year tenure at the company.

In June 2023, Ms. Hyra informed her direct supervisor, Kushal Sridhar, that she was pregnant. Soon after, Mr. Sridhar removed Ms. Hyra from the process of becoming a certified training manager. Mr. Sridhar also removed another pregnant employee from her role as apprentice general manager, stating that it “did not make sense” to keep her in the position since she soon would be going on maternity leave. Chipotle later gave that job to a male employee.

Ms. Hyra then began experiencing pregnancy-related health complications, including back pain and muscle spasms. She previously was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s Disease, which increased her risk of preeclampsia. Ms. Hyra notified Mr. Sridhar of her doctor-imposed work restrictions in June 2023 before taking planned vacation time. Upon her return, she took a few days off for pregnancy-related medical reasons.  Then, in August 2023, she formally requested NJFLA leave, which Cipotle approved the next day.

Ms. Hyra was set to begin her leave on September 13, 2023. However, instead of allowing her to take the leave, Chipotle terminated her employment on the very day her leave was scheduled to begin. The company claimed it fired her for editing timecards and allowing a practice of changing expired labels, but Ms. Hyra disputed these allegations, arguing they were pretextual excuses to avoid granting her leave and to justify firing her.

Ms. Hyra filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court, alleging violations of the NJFLA the federal Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and pregnancy and disability discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), among other claims. The case was later removed to federal court, where Chipotle sought to dismiss the NJFLA claims.

The Legal Issue and Applicable Rule

The NJFLA allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave every 24 months to care for a family member with a serious health condition or to bond with a new child. At the heart of the case was whether Chipotle violated the NJFLA by terminating Ms. Hyra in retaliation for requesting a pregnancy leave.

To establish an NJFLA violation, a court considers whether:

• the employee was eligible for NJFLA leave (worked at least 12 months and 1,000 hours in the past year)
• the employee properly requested leave; and
• the employer denied the leave or retaliated against the employee for requesting it.

Employers cannot interfere with an employee’s right to take family leave, nor can they fire, demote, or penalize employees for exercising this right. If an employer terminates an employee shortly after they request leave, courts may infer retaliation, which then places the burden on the employer to prove the termination was for a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason.

The Court’s Analysis

The Appellate Division ruled in favor of Ms. Hyra, holding that her employer violated the NJFLA by terminating her in retaliation for requesting leave.

Chipotle sought to dismiss Ms. Hyra’s NJFLA claims by arguing that she was not yet “entitled” to leave under the statute because her child had not been born when it terminated her employment. The company contended that because the NJFLA does not permit an employee to begin a leave for childbirth until after the child is born, Chipotle’s decision to fire Ms. Hyra while she still was pregnant could not violate the statute.

The court flatly rejected this argument, finding Chipotle failed to cite a single case where an employee was denied NJFLA protection simply because they had not yet started their leave. Instead, the court emphasized that an employee’s NJFLA rights are triggered the moment they provide notice of their intent to take a leave, not when the leave actually begins.

New Jersey courts consistently have held that employees “invoke” NJFLA protection as soon as they notify their employer that they intend to take leave. In Zhuang v. EMD Performance Materials Corp., the court recognized that an employee invokes their NJFLA and FMLA rights simply by informing their employer of their need for leave. Similarly, in D’Alia v. Allied-Signal Corp., the court held that NJFLA rights arise upon providing advance notice, as required by law. In fact, the NJFLA itself makes clear that an employee is “entitled to” leave after giving their employer proper notice.

What Was Not Said in the Court’s Opinion

While the court focused on Chipotle’s argument above, there are a few other things about Chipotle’s actions that suggest the company may have been engaging in discrimination.  For example:

Chipotle’s Justification is Weak

Chipotle argued the termination had nothing to do with the employee’s NJFLA request, claiming it was based on performance issues. However, it apparently did not present any documentation of any performance concerns before Ms. Hyra requested leave. In fact, Ms. Hyra apparently received positive performance evaluations in the months leading up to her request for a maternity leave.

Chipotle’s Timing is Suspicious

The timing of Ms. Hyra’s termination—just days after she submitted her NJFLA request—is suspicious. Courts often view close timing between a protected activity such as a maternity leave, and an adverse employment action such as firing the employee that occurs shortly thereafter, as strong evidence of retaliation. In this case, the short gap between the employee’s leave request and her termination, let alone the timing between the start of her leave and the termination, makes it difficult for the employer to argue that the firing was unrelated to the NJFLA request.

What You Can Do If Your NJFLA Rights Are Violated

If you believe your employer has unlawfully denied you family leave or retaliated against you, it is important that you understand your rights. At Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C., our Bergen County employment discrimination lawyers represent employees in NJFLA disputes, helping them hold employers accountable for violating their rights. If you have been denied family leave, wrongfully terminated, or retaliated against, contact us today to discuss your case.

Call (201) 777-2250 or contact us online to schedule a consultation. Our attorneys are dedicated to protecting New Jersey employees and ensuring that no worker is forced to choose between their family and their livelihood.