The New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday affirmed an Appellate Division ruling that public-school teachers were “essential employees” during the COVID-19 state of emergency and therefore eligible for the statute’s rebuttable presumption that a COVID-19 infection was work-related for workers compensation purposes.
In Giuseppe Amato v. Township of Ocean School District, the dispute arose after Denise Amato, a teacher in the Ocean Township School District, died of respiratory failure due to a COVID-19 infection suffered in 2021, within three months of schools returning to in-person instruction, according to a previous decision on the case.
Her husband filed a claim in the Division of Workers’ Compensation. A judge of compensation ruled in March 2024 that she qualified as an essential employee under a state mandate, thereby triggering a rebuttable presumption that her COVID-19 infection was work-related and fully compensable.
The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning that teachers were deemed essential through the Governor’s delegation of emergency responsibilities to the state Office of Emergency Management and the office’s adoption of federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which included teachers.
The state supreme court issued a per curiam decision, adopting the Appellate Division’s analysis and adding two points. First, the Court said teachers were also deemed essential through the Governor’s delegation of authority to the Department of Health and department’s issuance of two COVID-19 vaccination plans that categorized teachers and education/child-care workers as “essential workers.”
Second, the court rejected the school district’s procedural due-process argument that the judge of compensation improperly granted summary relief without affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge. The court held affidavits are required only when a motion relies on “facts not of record” under state law. Because the motion turned on statutory interpretation and public documents subject to judicial notice — rather than disputed, case-specific facts — no affidavits were necessary, the court said.