[Domestic relations] 8. Romeo v. Romeo

Romeo v. Romeo Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980. 84 N.J. 289, 418 A.2d 258. I.             Facts.Petitioner Irene Romeo and her husband Joseph Romeo were married and lived together. Irene was an owner of a business and Joseph would work for her business as a full-time worker and receive salary on a weekly basis. However, on February 22, 1974, Joseph found dead which was considered due to work-related accident. Irene filed a petition for dependency benefits under the Worker’s Compensation Act that was derived from her husband’s death. II.            Issue.Whether interspousal employment contract is valid and enforceable to seek dependency benefits III.           Reasoning.A.    Rules.1.    Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A 34:15-1 to -128 -      An employee who suffers work-related illnesses or injuries is eligible to seek for compensation including death benefits for dependents of workers who die due to work-related incidents.2.    Bendler v. Bendler, 3 N.J. 161 (1949)-      Interspousal immunity prohibits payment of compensation if the employee and employer are husband and wife.N.J.S.A. 37:2-5-      Disable a husband or wife to contract with or to sue each other, except as heretofore, and except authorized by this chapter.3.    N.J.S.A. 37:2-16.1-      Married woman may contract with husband alone or with third parties to form a partnership.Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31 L.ED.2d 349, 362 (1972)-      A marital couple is “an association of two individuals” rather than “an independent entity”.B.    Application1.     The Workers’ Compensation Act is a set of laws designed to provide financial, medical, and even death benefits to employees who suffered from work-related accidents. In the context of Workers’ Compensation Act, this case may seem quite straightforward as the petitioner in this case claims for dependency benefit that is derived from her husband’s death due to work-related incident. However, if the employment agreement is made between a husband and a wife, this may conflict with other precedents which dissert a concept of ‘interspousal immunity’.2.     The rule of  Bendler v. Bendler, 3 N.J. 161 (1949), which was made in 1949 basing on N.J.S.A. 37:2-5 adjudged any interspousal contract of hire to be void, thus, rebutting the employment agreement between the petitioner and her husband as an employer and an employee is void and unenforceable ab initio. The grounds for the judgment was that, in the context of the times, the idea of contracts between spouses was viewed unfavorably, as it saw marriage not as a union of two individuals but as a single entity. It was believed that contracts of hire between spouses could promote separation or divorce. Thus, the Bendler case decided in 1949 might have seemed appropriate back then. However, considering the significant changes in societal attitudes over the past 30 years and a legislative silence has been held since then, applying the same principles in 1979 feels outdated that the construction of N.J.S.A. 37:2-5 later concluded to be in error.3.     Furthermore, numerous common laws have also raised voices to uphold the recognition of interspousal employment contracts by recognizing a married woman’s individual right. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31 L.ED.2d 349, 362 (1972) (A marital couple is “an association of two individuals” rather than “an independent entity”) and N.J.S.A. 37:2-16.1 (married woman may contract with husband alone or with third parties to form a partnership). As the result, any laborer, regardless whether they are an employer or employee, deserves a right to enjoy equal protection of law from work-related causes under Workers’ Compensation Act. Denying the provision of such protection just because the contract was made between a married couple deprives of their right to be protected as workers. IV.          Holding.The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the compensation award reinstated.