A New Jersey man can pursue legal action against his former employer, including his brother who served as his supervisor, after having his health insurance cut off while still employed.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Fernando Roa can seek legal action against Gonzalez and Tapanes (G&T) Foods Inc., of Moonachie, N.J., also doing business as LAFE Foods, as well as Marino Roa, Fernando’s brother, for ending his health coverage three days prior to his termination.

According to the unanimous decision, authored by Justice Virginia Long, in 2003 Fernando Roa and his wife, Liliana, were employed by G&T Foods and supervised by Marino Roa. Marino Roa allegedly asked Fernando Roa to lie to Marino Roa’s wife by telling her that a gift left by a woman for Marino Roa was instead meant for him.

Fernando Roa agreed, but at some point he revealed the lie to Marino Roa’s wife. Marino Roa began to harass Fernando Roa and Liliana Roa, threatening to fire them both, and Carlos Pena, the owner and president of the food company, refused to intervene in the matter, according to court records.

Marino Roa’s harassment of his brother and sister-in-law “intensified,” according to the opinion, and on Aug. 24, 2003, Liliana Roa’s employment was terminated by the company.

On Sept. 15, 2003, she received notice that she was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits since she was terminated for misconduct. Liliana Roa appealed that decision, indicating that Marino Roa asked her to leave the premises, told her not to return to work and provided no reason for her discharge. She won her appeal on Oct. 21, 2003, but did not begin to receive benefits until February 2004.

On Oct. 3, 2003, Fernando Roa’s employment with G&T Foods was terminated. A day earlier, Liliana Roa underwent surgery and Fernando Roa expected it to be covered by his employer-sponsored health insurance.

Coverage refused initially

On or about Nov. 11, 2003, the court said, Fernando Roa’s health insurer notified him that it was refusing to pay for the surgery because the couple was not covered at the time the services were rendered. G&T Foods terminated his benefits, effective Sept. 30, 2003 – three days prior to his employment termination – but the premature termination of his benefits was corrected and the claim was paid around February 2004.

In the interim, however, the delay in unemployment and medical benefits caused financial problems, stress and anxiety for the couple and they filed suit Nov. 5, 2005, alleging that G&T Foods engaged in unlawful retaliation in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and that Marino Roa aided and abetted in that conduct.

A trial judge ruled their claims were filed too late, as the suit came two years after both Fernando Roa and Liliana Roa were terminated. An appellate court affirmed the ruling on the firings, and it ruled Liliana Roa’s claim was time-barred, but said that Fernando Roa’s post-discharge claim on the cancellation of his health insurance was actionable even though the conduct was not related to current or prospective employment, and that the claim could be timely if Fernando Roa did not become aware of the cancellation until Nov. 11, 2003.

In its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the argument that the insurance cancellation did not involve harm to Fernando Roa’s actual employment or proposed employment elsewhere, and therefore is not actionable under the LAD’s antiretaliation provision.

“The court also rejects the argument that the insurance cancellation did not rise to the level necessary to invoke the LAD’s protection and therefore was not independently actionable,” Long wrote in her decision. “Fernando’s claim that the insurance cancellation at least in part caused him and his wife to experience financial problems, damaged their credit rating, subjected them to constant calls from debt collectors, and caused them stress and anxiety is sufficient to meet the threshold for an independent cause of action under the LAD.”

The matter was remanded back to the trial court for proceedings based on the Supreme Court’s decision.