The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed Tuesday that teachers qualify as essential employees entitled to a rebuttable presumption that their COVID-19 infections were work-related for workers' compensation purposes, upholding a lower court decision in a case involving a teacher who died from the virus.
In *Giuseppe Amato v. Township of Ocean School District*, the high court issued a per curiam decision affirming the Appellate Division's ruling substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Puglisi's opinion. The case centered on whether teachers should be considered essential employees under New Jersey's workers' compensation statutes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The case arose after Denise Amato, a teacher in the Ocean Township School District, died of respiratory failure as a result of COVID-19. Her husband, Giuseppe Amato, filed a claim with the Division of Workers' Compensation seeking benefits under the presumption that her infection was work-related.
The legal framework for the decision stems from actions taken in March 2020 when 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, in conjunction with the New Jersey Department of Health, to take any actions necessary to protect citizens.
Central to the court's analysis was guidance issued by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security. CISA issued guidance identifying who should be considered essential employees during the pandemic, and the state's Office of Emergency Management adopted CISA's essential employee guidelines, which included teachers.
Additionally, the Department of Health promulgated two COVID-19 vaccination plans that specifically identified teachers as essential employees, further supporting their designation under state emergency protocols.
In March 2024, the Judge of Compensation determined that Denise Amato was an essential employee pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-31.11 to .12, establishing a rebuttable presumption that her contraction of COVID-19 was work-related. This statutory presumption shifts the burden of proof, requiring employers or insurers to demonstrate that the infection was not work-related rather than requiring claimants to prove it was.
The Appellate Division affirmed the compensation judge's decision, concluding that teachers were deemed essential employees through the Governor's delegation of responsibility to protect the public to the Office of Emergency Management, and that office's adoption of CISA's list of essential employees, which included teachers.
The Supreme Court's decision not to write a plenary opinion indicates the justices found the Appellate Division's reasoning sufficient and well-founded. By affirming substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Puglisi's opinion, the court endorsed the lower court's analysis of the statutory framework and emergency designations.
The ruling carries implications for other teachers and school employees who contracted COVID-19 during the pandemic. Under the rebuttable presumption established by the court's affirmation, teachers who can demonstrate they contracted COVID-19 while working during the declared emergency period are entitled to workers' compensation benefits unless their employers can prove the infection was not work-related.
This presumption recognizes the elevated risk teachers faced during the pandemic, particularly during periods when schools remained open for in-person instruction or when teachers were required to be physically present in school buildings. The designation as essential employees acknowledges the critical role teachers played in maintaining educational services during the public health emergency.
The case also highlights the intersection between federal emergency guidance and state workers' compensation law. The court's reliance on CISA's essential employee designations demonstrates how federal emergency protocols can influence state-level benefit determinations.
For school districts and their insurance carriers, the decision establishes clear precedent regarding teacher COVID-19 claims. While the presumption is rebuttable, the burden on employers to overcome it may prove substantial, particularly for teachers who were required to work in-person during peak transmission periods.
The *Amato* decision follows a pattern of courts across the country grappling with COVID-19 workers' compensation claims for various categories of workers deemed essential during the pandemic. The ruling provides clarity for New Jersey's educational workforce while establishing the legal framework for evaluating similar claims.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on Sept. 25, 2025, and decided on Dec. 11, 2025. The decision applies retroactively to teachers who contracted COVID-19 during the declared emergency period and may inform future emergency response protocols regarding essential employee designations.
For teachers and their families, the ruling validates the risks educators took in continuing to provide educational services during the pandemic and ensures access to workers' compensation benefits for those who suffered work-related COVID-19 infections.