SERVING OUR CLIENTS AND COMMUNITY DURING COVID-19

Articles Tagged with disability discrimination lawyer

Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), an employee is entitled to reasonable accommodations at his or her workplace when he or she has a disability and the accommodation allows him or her to carry out basic job functions. But what if the employee requires medical leave to seek treatment for the disability? How long can the requested leave be? What if the employee’s time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has already been exhausted or is unavailable? And how can the employee prove that he or she would still be able to perform basic job functions if the accommodation is provided?

IMG_4199-300x169
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey answered these questions in a recent decision in the case of Pritchett v. New Jersey, when it held that leaves of absence are available accommodations under the LAD. In upholding the reasonableness of a request for a 4month extension of a medical leave, the Court determined that even unpaid leave that exceeds FMLA entitlements can be considered a reasonable accommodation, and should be assessed on a case by case basis. Additionally, the Court found that the LAD does not require expert testimony as to the individual employee’s ability to return to work. Such testimony need only attest to the fact that someone with the same disability could potentially function in the workplace.

In 2006, Shelley Pritchett was hired as a corrections officer at the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), and within a year, she was promoted to senior corrections officer. As a routine part of her job, Pritchett escorted inmates through and around the prison, responded to codes, and intervened to end physical fights between inmates when necessary. On June 8, 2011, Pritchett broke up a fight among several inmates and injured her neck, back and knee. Due to her injuries, Pritchett took medical leave pursuant to the FMLA until September 21, 2011, exhausting all of her available FMLA leave.

The New Jersey Appellate Division has ruled that an employer’s pregnancy leave policy that requires pregnant employees to exhaust their accrued paid sick and vacation time to be in violation the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  In finding for the employee in the reported decision of the the entitled Delanoy v. Township of Ocean, the analyzed the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination dating back to January 17, 2014, which specifically made pregnancy a protected class under the state anti-discrimination law.  The court’s decision is being viewed as a significant legal victory of New Jersey pregnant worker’s rights.

The appeal arose from a suit brought by an Ocean Township police officer, alleging pregnancy-based discrimination in connection with her request for an accommodation related to her pregnancy. Specifically, she claimed that the Township’s policy regarding pregnant workers is discriminatory on its face and that the requirement that she exchange her accrued PTO as a condition of her accommodation amounted to an unlawful penalty.When Plaintiff became pregnant, she submitted a doctor’s note to the Township advising them of her pregnancy and her need to be transferred to a light-duty position. Plaintiff sought the transfer from September 22, 2014 through the end of her pregnancy, in March 2015.

IMG_0665-300x300

On or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff was provided an administrative position in the Township’s Department of Records, and was further assigned to receiving walk-in complaints at the police station. In her role as the walk-in officer, Plaintiff did not feel comfortable as her pregnancy precluded the use of her firearm and the position had dangerous propensities. Nevertheless, she performed her duties as instructed. Despite her ability to work and prior to her expected due date, around February 25, 2015, the Township forced Plaintiff to take her pregnancy leave early and begin using her PTO. In total, Plaintiff was required to deplete 2 weeks of PTO.

Contact Information