N.J. Supreme Court Rules Teachers Are ‘Essential Employees’ for COVID-19 Workers’ Comp Claims

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court ruling that classified teachers as “essential employees” during the COVID-19 pandemic, a decision with significant implications for workers’ compensation claims.

In Giuseppe Amato vs. Township of Ocean School District, the Court addressed whether a teacher who contracted COVID-19 was entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the illness was work-related. By upholding the Appellate Division’s judgment, the high court solidified the pathway for New Jersey educational staff to access benefits under the state’s pandemic-era legislation, potentially influencing how insurers and self-insured districts assess liability for occupational disease claims arising from public health emergencies.

The case originated from the death of Denise Amato, a teacher in the Ocean Township School District, who died of respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Following her death, her husband, Giuseppe Amato, filed a claim with the Division of Workers’ Compensation.

The core of the dispute rested on New Jersey legislation enacted in response to the pandemic, which created a presumption of compensability for “essential employees” who contracted the virus. This presumption shifts the burden of proof, requiring the employer—or their insurer—to prove the illness was not work-related, rather than the employee having to prove it was. The central question was whether teachers fell under the statutory definition of essential employees based on executive orders and agency guidance issued during the state of emergency.

The Township of Ocean School District, acting as the respondent, argued against the presumption of compensability on procedural grounds. It contended that the initial decision by the Judge of Compensation was improper because it was a summary decision made without personal affidavits or a full evidentiary hearing regarding the specific duties of the deceased teacher. The District argued that due process was violated because they were not afforded the opportunity to contest the facts through testimony.

Conversely, the petitioner argued that the status of “essential employee” was a matter of law and statutory interpretation, not specific factual duties. They maintained that public documents, including the governor’s executive orders and subsequent agency guidelines, were sufficient to establish the classification without need for further evidentiary proceedings.

In its analysis, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the school district’s procedural arguments and focused on the interpretation of the “essential employee” statute. The court reasoned that the definition of an essential employee relies on designations made by the public authority declaring the state of emergency.

he court noted that the governor delegated authority to the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and the Department of Health (DOH). Both agencies subsequently adopted guidelines—specifically federal infrastructure guidance and state vaccination plans—that explicitly listed teachers and educational staff as essential workers.

The court emphasized that because the determination relied on these public documents and statutory interpretation, no specific facts regarding Amato’s daily activities were necessary to decide the motion. As the court stated in its opinion, “The legal question of whether teachers were essential employees under the statute required no specific facts regarding decedent’s duties.” Therefore, the court held that the requirement for affidavits was not triggered, as the decision did not rely on facts outside the official record.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment, ruling in favor of the petitioner. This decision confirms that teachers in New Jersey are entitled to the rebuttable presumption that a COVID-19 infection contracted during the relevant emergency period is work-related.

View the full opinion here. &