The recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision in Amato v. Township of Ocean School District offers crucial insights into two important legal principles: judicial recusal and the definition of essential employees during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jon L. Gelman

The judicial recusal dilemma

At the heart of the case was an unprecedented question: Can a judge who previously sponsored a bill as a legislator preside over a case involving that legislation? Judge Joann Downey, who had been an Assemblymember from 2016 to 2020 and sponsored the bill creating the essential employee COVID-19 presumption, faced a recusal motion from the School District.

The court's ruling was nuanced. It established that a former legislator is not automatically disqualified from hearing cases related to legislation she previously sponsored. The key considerations include:

1. Judicial knowledge vs. bias. The court distinguished between judicial knowledge and actual bias. Judge Downey's familiarity with the law's creation was seen as valuable context, not a disqualifying factor.
2. Impartiality standard. The court applied a "reasonable person" test, asking whether a fully informed individual would genuinely doubt the judge's impartiality.
3. Preserving judicial diversity. The decision recognized that preventing legislators-turned-judges from hearing related cases could unnecessarily limit judicial perspectives.

Essential employee status during COVID-19

The case also comprehensively interprets who qualifies as an essential employee during the pandemic. For teachers specifically, the court's analysis was particularly noteworthy:

• Broad statutory interpretation. The court emphasized the broad language of the statute, particularly Section (4), which allows public authorities to designate essential employees.
•  Multiple supporting documents. The court relied on several key documents to support teachers' essential employee status:
  • CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) guidance.
  • New Jersey Office of Emergency Management adoption of CISA guidelines.
  • Department of Health vaccination plan.
  • Executive Order 175, which highlighted the critical nature of in-person instruction.
• Procedural flexibility. The court rejected technical objections about summary judgment procedures, focusing on substantive statutory interpretation instead.

Key takeaways

1. Judicial recusal is not automatic and requires a nuanced, fact-specific analysis.
2. The definition of "essential employee" during COVID-19 was intentionally broad and adaptable.
3. Courts are willing to look beyond literal statutory language to understand legislative intent.

Practical implications

For workers' compensation cases involving COVID-19 exposure, this decision:

• Provides a clear framework for determining essential employee status.
• Maintains a rebuttable presumption of work-related disease.
• Allows employers to challenge the presumption with contrary evidence.

The Amato decision represents a critical judicial interpretation of how institutions and workers navigated the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Claimants' attorney Jon L. Gelman is the author of "New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law" and co-author of the national treatise "Modern Workers’ Compensation Law." He is based in Wayne, New Jersey. This blog post is republished with permission.