Extends anti-SLAPP protections to complainants of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination.
Assembly Bill 5142 expands New Jersey’s existing anti-SLAPP statute to cover people who make good-faith, non-malicious reports or complaints about sexual offenses, sexual harassment, discrimination, or retaliation for making such reports. Under the bill, these complainants would be able to invoke the anti-SLAPP procedure to seek early dismissal of retaliatory civil claims brought against them, so long as the report or complaint was made with a reasonable basis, even if no criminal, civil, or administrative case was ultimately filed.
The bill also revises related procedural rules in the anti-SLAPP law. It broadens the scope of protected activity, creates a presumption in favor of staying related proceedings while an anti-SLAPP motion is pending, clarifies when limited discovery may occur, and preserves the court’s ability to hear certain unrelated motions or emergency injunction requests. It further provides that a successful moving party may recover compensatory and punitive damages, court costs, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses, and it clarifies the effect of voluntary dismissals on fee-and-damages claims.
The bill amends Title 2A and specifically revises provisions of the 2023 anti-SLAPP law, P.L.2023, c.155 (C.2A:53A-49 et seq.). Its practical effect is to extend statutory protections and remedies to victims, complainants, witnesses, and others who report sexual assault, harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, making it harder for alleged wrongdoers to use retaliatory lawsuits to deter complaints. It also changes court procedure by strengthening stay provisions and authorizing broader monetary relief for prevailing anti-SLAPP movants.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest strong support for protecting survivors and complainants from retaliation, especially in the context of #MeToo-related reporting and enforcement of the Law Against Discrimination. The available materials do not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no documented opposition or bipartisan divide in the provided record. Overall, the bill appears framed as a protective civil-rights and victim-support measure rather than a controversial policy change.
The main point of potential contention is the expansion of anti-SLAPP protections beyond traditional public-speech and petitioning activity to include private complaints about sexual misconduct and discrimination. Critics could view that expansion as making it more difficult for plaintiffs to pursue defamation or related claims, while supporters would argue it is necessary to prevent retaliation against legitimate complainants. Another possible issue is the bill’s addition of compensatory and punitive damages, which increases the stakes for parties filing unsuccessful or frivolous retaliatory suits.