By: Ty Hyderally, Esq. and Kenny Delgado

April 12, 2026

The Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a decision on January 29, 2026, that is narrow in scope but may have interesting and long-lasting implications in the intersection of collective bargaining and employment law. The decision in In the Matter of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey v. AFSCME Local 888 (A-46-24) (In re Rutgers) dealt with a situation where the procedures in the federal Title IX regulations that were passed in 2020 by the United States Department of Education (“Title IX”) conflicted with the collective bargaining agreement/ collective negotiation agreement (CNA) between Rutgers and the Local 888.

The facts of this case was that victim Jane alleged that JM sexually harassed her. The allegation was investigated by Rutgers.  Following the investigation, Rutgers terminated JM. JM’s union, AFSCME Local 888 (“Local 888”) then sought to appeal the termination, filed a grievance, and sought to take the matter to arbitration.  The Local 888’s arbitration process excluded the alleged victim, Jane, from participating in the grievance procedures.  Rutgers objected to the union’s actions and argued that the Local 888’s arbitration procedures were contrary to the regulations set forth in Title IX.  Rutgers thus refused to process the grievance.

Justice Fasciale wrote for a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court that where such a conflict exists, Title IX preempts the CNA.  Justice Fasciale noted that the Local 888’s arbitration process, that resulted in excluding the alleged victim from participating in the arbitration process, conflicted with the protections and requirements set forth in the federal requirements of Title IX.  The Court noted that the CNA’s arbitration process only granted appeal rights to JM, the accused employee and the Local 888, and granted no such rights to the alleged victim, Jane.  The Court noted that this violated federal regulations requiring equal participation.

Due to this conflict, the NJSC reversed the lower court decisions and issued the decision that where the CNA’s procedural requirements conflict with Title IX’s procedural requirements for handling a sexual harassment complaint, the Title IX federal regulation prevails and preempts the union contract.  The Court’s ruling was specific to the facts of this case due to the way the CNA’s procedural requirements were set forth in the union contract.  Thus, the decision should not be interpreted as a global proclamation as to the enforceability of union contracts.  However, it is clear that where the union contract is written in a manner to contravene the protections set forth in federal law, the union contract will not stand.  This decision finds support in the Supremacy Clause that pays homage to the premise that federal law is the highest level of law in the country and cannot be contradicted, contravened, or undermined by state law.  The Court noted that since Rutgers receives federal funding, it has to comply with Title IX and has to comply with the dictates of the Supremacy Clause.  The Court once again took special note of the wording of the CNA which did not allow the victim to be a part of the appeals process as the central issue supporting its ruling.

The world of employment law is one that is constantly changing and may sometimes be confusing. If you believe that you have been aggrieved in the workplace or have experienced sexual harassment  or other form of discrimination and have questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek out an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-three (23) years!

 En nuestra firma hablamos español.

 This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.