New Jersey disability discrimination lawyer Tag Archives

Supreme Court: Showing of Adverse Employment Act Not Required For Failure-to-Accommodate Disability Claim

June 17, 2021 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that employees who suffer from a disability do not need to show an adverse employment action in order to prevail on a failure to reasonably accommodate claim. The case is being considered by New Jersey employment lawyers as a major victory for workplace rights of disabled employees.

The case was brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which is widely considered one the country’s strongest state anti-discrimination laws in the country. While the Law Against Discrimination mirrors the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), it does provide for some greater protections than the federal counterpart. However, both laws share the same remedial goals to allow disabled persons to maintain gainful employment by requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations that will allow them to perform the essential functions of the job. Accommodations are not considered “reasonable” if they impose an undue hardship on the employers business operations, and thus not required. To establish a prima facie claim when he or she is able to show that he or she: (1) qualifies as an individual with a disability or is perceived as having a disability; (2) is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, or was performing those essential functions, either with or without reasonable accommodations; and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate his or her disabilities.

In the case entitled, Richter v. Oakland Board of Education, Nos. A-23 September Term 2019, 083273 (June 8, 2021), a teacher who suffered from Type-1 diabetes, sued her employer after experiencing a hypoglycemic event in her classroom during she fainted and hit her head on a science laboratory table. As a result of the fall, Ms. Richter sustained serious and permanent life-altering injuries. Ms. Richter blames the school for the injuries because they had refused her request for an accommodation to eat lunch earlier in the day to maintain proper blood sugar levels. According to Ms. Richter, if she was granted the requested reasonable accommodation, she would not have suffered the hypoglycemic event and would not have suffered the significant injuries.

Student Kicked Off Volleyball Team for Having Epilepsy — What Disability Discrimination Looks Like in Schools

November 18, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Disability discrimination remains a persistent problem in the workplace. But it does not happen only at work. Last month, a Norwood, New Jersey teenager was cut from her school’s volleyball team because she has epilepsy. After her father reported what he believed to be discriminatory conduct and demanded that the school adhere to her rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, she was permitted back on the team. Once she was playing again, however, she was subjected to bullying and harassment from her teammates that lasted the entire school year according to the Complaint filed by her father on October 1, 2020.

Norwood is a small K-8 district where the minor plaintiff (referred to by her initials, EP) received special education and related services due to several disabilities including social anxiety and epilepsy. In addition to being a special education student at Norwood public school, EP was also a member of the volleyball team. Along with her teammates, she tried out for and made the team in her 6^thand 7^thgrade years. When she tried out in her 8^thgrade year, she was shocked when she found out that she was the only 8^thgrade student who did not make it. When her father addressed his daughter’s removal from the volleyball team with school administrators, EP was allowed back on the team, but was subject to bullying by her teammates for the rest of the school year.

The family filed a Complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court for Bergen County against the Norwood Board of Education and Vito DeLaura, the principal of Norwood public school, alleging violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act. In the lawsuit, the family alleges that Mr. DeLaura, who they claim has a history of singling out and humiliating EP due to her disabilities, instructed the volleyball coach not to let EP play. Specifically, the lawsuit claims the volleyball coach cut EP from the team because her epilepsy required the school to hire a nurse who would be present at all games and practices, creating a significant financial burden on the school district. The family claims that the subsequent bullying was due to EP’s disabilities and was not addressed properly by the school.

After Calabotta: Certain Out-of-State Employees Protected by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

July 2, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In the recent case David F. Calabotta v. Phibro Animal Health Corp., et al., Smith Eibeler employment attorney Kathryn McClure, Esq., along with co-counsel, Mary Ann Sedey secured a substantial victory for employees, both inside and outside of New Jersey. Through its opinion, the Appellate Division reaffirmed New Jersey’s commitment to the eradication of workplace discrimination and the expansive reach of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

The case provides clarification to federal and state courts that it is inappropriate to impose a “bright-line rule” that the Law Against Discrimination only applies where an individual was employed within the State of New Jersey. Rather, a case-by-case analysis must be performed, with attention paid to the particular facts and circumstances at issue in each given case. Further, the Appellate Division again approved of a claim for associational discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination, despite the absence of explicit legislative approval of such a claim.

David Calabotta, the plaintiff in the Calabotta case, was not a member of a protected class himself, but rather brought a claim for associational discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination. David’s claim was premised on his relationship with his wife, who was diagnosed with breast cancer and thus was disabled within the meaning of the Law Against Discrimination. David brought his claim after his employer refused to consider him for a promotion and then subsequently terminated his employment after his wife became disabled. David alleged that his employer took those actions against him because of his association with his disabled wife.