.

Leonard C. Leicht

Co-Chair, Trucking & Transportation Practice

Portrait of Leonard C. Leicht

Leonard concentrates his practice in defending significant commercial motor vehicle, personal injury, employment, civil rights and professional liability matters. He has tried numerous cases to verdict in the state and federal courts and is recognized by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Certified Civil Trial Attorney. Leonard has held this designation since 2004.

Highly experienced in trucking law, Leonard handles all aspects of trucking litigation matters, from Carmack claims to the most complicated and significant bodily injury claims. In addition to his New Jersey based practice, Leonard has also handled trucking cases in state and federal courts in other jurisdictions, pro hac vice, and also provides specialized non-litigation legal services to his trucking and transportation clientele in labor and contractual matters.

Leonard represents multiple trucking and transportation clients directly, and often at the request of their insurance carriers. He has represented trucking clientele before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the U.S. National Labor Relations Board. In addition to trucking, Leonard handles traumatic injury matters in litigation involving elevators, escalators and walkways representing contractors and building maintenance.

Leonard also handles employment and civil rights matters arising under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), New Jersey’s whistleblower statute. His experience includes defending both public and private employers against claims involving discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and alleged whistleblower activity in state and federal courts, as well as before administrative agencies.

In addition, Leonard has handled precedent-setting appellate matters before New Jersey Appellate Division and also represented the defendant in Johnson v. Braddy Trucking before the New Jersey Supreme Court. He has also successfully argued appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Leonard regularly represents clients in administrative, disciplinary and labor hearings. He also often serves as a mediator and arbitrator at the request of his colleagues.

Named among The Best Lawyers in America® for Transportation Law, Leonard has also been recognized five times among the Top 100 New Jersey Super Lawyers. In addition, Best Lawyers® named him the 2027 Newark “Lawyer of the Year” for Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants.

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 1986)
    • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (B.A., 1983)
    • New Jersey
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of New York
    • Supreme Court of the United States
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, “Lawyer of the Year,” Roseland, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2027)
      • The Best Lawyers in America® list is published by Best Lawyers®. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
      • The Martindale-Hubbell rated attorney list is issued by Internet Brands, Inc. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (2007-2027)
      • The Best Lawyers in America® list is published by Best Lawyers®. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

    • New Jersey Super Lawyer List (2005-2022 (Top 100 New Jersey Super Lawyer, 2009-2010 and 2012-2014))

      • The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • Essex County Bar Association
    • New Jersey State Bar Association
    • New Jersey Defense Association
    • Transportation and Logistics Council
    • Transportation Lawyers Association
    • Trucking Industry Defense Association
    • Successfully defended a State Division and individual supervisor in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff alleged disability discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The trial court granted Summary Judgment and plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiff’s claims were either time barred or unsupported by specific, actionable evidence. The court further found the Division engaged in good faith interactive dialogue, provided extensive accommodations, and that the lower court was correct in concluding there was no viable cause of action against either defendant.
    • Obtained a directed verdict in favor of a national trucking company in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination case. After two days of trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that offensive comments made by a driver were not based on a protected category and could not sustain a cause of action under the LAD.
    • Spigai v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. A-4242-16T4, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 81 (App. Div. Jan. 11, 2019)
    • Department of Cmty. Affairs v. Hansen House, LLC, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2190 (App. Div. 2017)
    • Somers v. Home Props. Regency Club, LLC, 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2375 (App. Div. 2011), certif. denied, 209 N.J. 98 (2012)
    • Dique v. NJ State Police, 603 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2010)
    • Nevins v. Muldoon, 2008 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1413 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 197 N.J. 13 (2008)
    • Curley v. Klem, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8606 (D.N.J. 2006), aff’d, 499 F.3d 199 (3d. Cir. 2007)
    • Johnson v. Braddy Trucking, 376 N.J. Super. 215, 890 A.2d 944 (App. Div. 2005), aff’d, 186 N.J. 40, 869 A.2d 964 (2006)
    • Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney, 2004

Results

Directed Verdict Obtained in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Case

We obtained a directed verdict in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination case filed against a national trucking company after two days of trial. The plaintiff was a laborer who assisted a truck driver making deliveries to a retail store. The driver admitted to making sexually explicit comments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued the comments were made due to his race (African American) and were protected under the LAD. Jillian and Len argued that the comments were offensive to anyone who heard them and had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s race. At trial, the judge agreed that the language used by the truck driver, however offensive it was, could not sustain a cause of action under the LAD as it was not based on a protected category as alleged by the plaintiff. The judge dismissed the case.

Defense Obtains a Published New Jersey Appellate Division Decision Affirming that Perception of Having COVID-19 Does Not Constitute Perceived Disability Under NJLAD

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal our defense team obtained in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) perceived disability claim, alleging COVID-19 to be a disability under this statute. This employment discrimination claim involved a matter of first impression in New Jersey and established that COVID-19 infection, without more, does not constitute a disability under the NJLAD. A former employee filed suit, asserting perceived disability discrimination under the NJLAD. The plaintiff alleged he was wrongfully terminated based upon his employer’s perception that he had COVID-19. We filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, asserting the complaint did not set forth a cause of action as COVID-19 is not a recognized disability under the NJLAD. The court granted our motion and agreed that COVID-19 is not a disability under the NJLAD and, therefore, could not be the predicate for a perceived discrimination case. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding the plaintiff’s COVID-19-perceived disability claim failed to plead a viable cause of action under the NJLAD.  

Thought Leadership

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.