§ 34:11-77 — Hiring entity, domestic worker, interfere, restrain, deny exercise of, attempt, rights, prohibited; actions considered retaliation.

19. a. It shall be unlawful for a hiring entity or any other person to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right set forth in P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.). b. The minimum requirements of sections 13 through 18 of P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-71 through 34:11-76) shall be deemed incorporated into any contract, whether actual or implied, between the employer and the domestic worker. c. A material breach by a hiring entity of a contract with a domestic worker shall constitute a violation of P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.), without regard to whether the breach is of a provision required by this act. d. No hiring entity or any other person shall take or threaten retaliatory action against any person because a domestic worker has exercised rights or pursued a claim of violation under P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.). These rights include the right to demand compliance with protections established by written agreement; the right to file a complaint or inform any person about an employer's alleged violation of this act; the right to cooperate with the department in any investigation pursuant to this act; and the right to inform any person of the rights established under this act. e. No hiring entity or any other person shall communicate to a person exercising rights protected under P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.) the willingness or intent to contact, report to, or to make an implied or express assertion to report to a government agency regarding the suspected citizenship or immigration status of a domestic worker or family member of a domestic worker because the worker has or has expressed an intent to exercise rights protected under this act or because of a belief the worker may do so. f. The protections of this section shall apply to any person who mistakenly but in good faith alleges a violation of P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.). g. It shall be considered a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if the hiring entity or any other person takes an adverse action against a domestic worker within 90 calendar days of the worker's exercise of rights protected in P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.). However, in the case of temporary or seasonal employment that ended before the close of the 90-calendar-day period, the presumption also applies if the hiring entity fails to rehire a former domestic worker at the next opportunity for work in the same position. The hiring entity may rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the adverse action would have been taken in the absence of such protected activity. If a domestic worker declines to be rehired for the same position or resigns from the position, the presumption in this subsection g. shall not apply. h. Proof of retaliation under P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.) shall be sufficient upon a showing that the hiring entity or any other person has taken an adverse action against a person and the persons exercise or rights protected in P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.) was a motivating factor in the absence of that protected activity. i. A complaint or other communication by any person triggers the protection of P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.) regardless of whether the complaint or communication is in writing or makes explicit reference to P.L.2023, c.262 (C.34:11-69 et al.). L.2023, c.262, s.19.