In Giuseppe Amato v. Township of Ocean School District, (A-31-24/090133) (Decided December 11, 2025), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a teacher was an essential employee entitled to a rebuttable presumption that her contraction of COVID-19 was work-related and fully compensable for purposes of workers’ compensation benefits.
Facts of Giuseppe Amato v. Township of Ocean School District
In March 2020, Governor Phil Murphy issued Executive Order 103, declaring a public health emergency and state of emergency in New Jersey due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Executive Order authorized the State Office of Emergency Management (OEM), in conjunction with the New Jersey Department of Health (DOH), to take any actions necessary to protect citizens. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, issued guidance as to who should be considered essential employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. OEM adopted CISA’s essential employee guidelines, which included teachers. In addition, DOH promulgated two COVID-19 vaccination plans, which identified teachers as essential employees.
Denise Amato, a teacher in the Ocean Township School District, died of respiratory failure as a result of COVID-19. Petitioner Giuseppe Amato, her husband, filed a claim with the Division of Workers’ Compensation. In March 2024, the Judge of Compensation determined, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-31.11 to .12, that Denise Amato was an essential employee and that there was therefore a rebuttable presumption that her contraction of COVID-19 was work-related.
The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that “[t]eachers were deemed essential employees through the Governor’s delegation of the responsibility to protect the public to OEM, and OEM’s adoption of CISA’s list of essential employees, which included teachers.” The Appellate Division also found that the Judge of Compensation did not err by issuing a summary decision, explaining that personal affidavits and a statement of material facts were not necessary to decide Amato’s status because the issue turned on statutory interpretation and public documents, not facts specific to her.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in Giuseppe Amato v. Township of Ocean School District
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, largely adopting the reasoning of the lower court. “We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Puglisi’s thorough and thoughtful opinion,” the Court wrote in a per curium opinion.
The New Jersey Supreme Court also added two important clarifications. First, the Court noted that teachers were also deemed essential employees “by the public authority declaring the state of emergency” through the Governor’s delegation of authority to the Department of Health (DOH), and DOH’s issuance of two separate vaccination plans deeming teachers to be “essential employees.”
Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s contention that it was “denied due process because the Judge of Compensation summarily granted petitioner’s motion after relieving petitioner of the basic requirement to present affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge of the relevant facts.”
According to the Court, petitioner satisfied N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.5(a)’s requirement that the moving party to submit “a notice of motion” that “shall include the factual and legal basis for the relief requested” by including a notice of motion, a legal argument as to why Amato was deemed an essential employee, and public documents of which judicial notice could be taken. Further, N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.5(b) provides that if the notice of motion “relies on facts not of record, it shall be supported by affidavit.
In this case, because the motion relied on public documents, not on “facts not of record,” no affidavit was required. “Despite respondent’s protestations to the contrary, that legal question required no specific facts regarding decedent’s duties,” the Court wrote.
