One very tricky issue in workers’ compensation is whether an employer or insurance carrier has workers’ compensation lien rights when an injured worker has a work injury and later files an employment lawsuit against the employer under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. There are very few cases on this precise issue, which is why it is important to read Haskins v. Christopher Casey, et al. and Ekornes, Inc., No. A-2487-25 (App. Div. Sept. 21, 2026).
The case began with a fairly routine workers’ compensation injury to Haskins, who was a material handler working in a warehouse. He was reaching in December 2020 when he fell and injured his shoulder. He resolved his workers’ compensation case under an Order Approving Settlement for $85,995 in permanent partial disability benefits on November 17, 2022.
Months later, in 2023, plaintiff filed a civil complaint against his employer, Ekornes. He amended the complaint in May 2025, alleging that the company unilaterally placed him on leave under the FMLA, denied his request for work accommodation and then terminated his employment on December 3, 2021. Among his claims, he alleged that his employer’s actions violated the NJLAD (New Jersey Law Against Discrimination). He also alleged that his employer was acting in retaliation against him for exercising his rights to file a workers’ compensation claim. He alleged that he suffered lost wages and “emotional distress” due to his termination.
Haskins moved to present evidence in the trial of medical benefits, temporary disability benefits and permanent partial disability benefits paid by his employer. He was seeking to prove that his civil claim for compensatory damages pertained to his claims for bodily injury in the workers’ compensation case. He filed a motion to declare his rights under N.J.S.A. 34:15-40, which is the subrogation provision of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act. In other words, he assumed that his payments in workers’ compensation would be considered a double recovery if he were to recover in his employment discrimination case. In essence, he assumed his employer would have a lien on his civil recovery. Introducing into evidence the total payments in the workers’ compensation case might support a substantial award of damages in the civil case.
The trial judge granted the motions made by plaintiff, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Court said, “Because the shoulder injury was not caused by defendants’ alleged LAD-violative acts, plaintiff is not entitled in his LAD claims to damages related to that injury.” The Court added, “Moreover, his employer’s workers’ compensation carrier will not have a lien claim against any potential damage award because no part of the LAD award would involve an exception to the bar under Section 40.” The Court ruled that Haskins could not present evidence to the jury regarding the injury to his shoulder nor the benefits paid for treatment of his shoulder.
This raises the very important question: when does an employer have workers’ compensation lien rights when an employee sues the employer under the NJLAD? The Haskins Court answered this question. It distinguished this case from the rule in Richter v. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021). The plaintiff in that case was a teacher with a history of diabetes. She experienced a hypoglycemic event in a classroom, which led directly to an injury when she fainted, struck her head on a laboratory table and ultimately suffered permanent injuries. She received workers’ compensation benefits for her injuries and also sued the Board of Education under the NJLAD. She argued that the Board failed to make her requested accommodations for her preexisting diabetic condition. She had asked the Board to change her schedule by having her lunch earlier in the day so as to better manage her blood sugar levels but the Board had refused her request. The Supreme Court held that plaintiff’s award in her civil lawsuit under the LAD would be a double recovery subject to the employer’s lien rights under N.J.S.A. 34:15-40.
In deciding whether an employer or carrier has a lien on a recovery in an LAD case where workers’ compensation benefits have been paid to the injured worker/plaintiff, one needs to contrast the facts in Haskins with the facts in Richter. In this case, the plaintiff could not show that his shoulder injury was caused by the actions of the employer in allegedly violating his rights under the Law Against Discrimination. For one thing, there was a time gap between the work injury and the termination months later. In contrast, the Supreme Court found a direct connection between the violation of the rights of Ms. Richter under the Law Against Discrimination and the work injury that she suffered in her fainting episode. She successfully argued that the work injury occurred because of the denial of her request for reasonable accommodation. When there is direct link between the happening of the work injury and the LAD claim, the employer or carrier retains lien rights under N.J.S.A. 34:15-40.
