Roy M. Victor v. State of New Jersey, New Jersey State Police, et al., June 2009,401 N.J. Super. 596

The Appellate Division held that a plaintiff must prove that he or she suffered from an adverse employment action when an accommodation for a disability is denied.

Victor v. State of New Jersey, 401 N.J. Super. 596 (App. Div. 2008)

In general, a disabled plaintiff suing under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) must show: “(1) the plaintiff was handicapped or disabled within the meaning of the statute; (2) the plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position of employment, with or without accommodation; (3) the plaintiff suffered adverse employment action because of the handicap or disability; and (4) the employer sought another to perform the same work after the plaintiff had been removed from the position.” N.J.S.A. §§ 10:5-1 to 49. In Victor v. State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Appellate Division held, as a matter of first impression, that a disabled plaintiff proceeding on a failure-to-accommodate theory must affirmatively prove that he suffered an adverse employment action as a result of his employer’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Cicchetti v. Morris County Sheriff’s Office, 194 N.J. 563 (2008).

A recent decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Cichetti addresses two distinct and important issues in the context of employment discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).  The first aspect of the decision makes clear that after-acquired evidence of employee resume fraud can only serve as a bar to economic damages if the employer can prove that it would not have hired the employee in the first place but for the resume fraud, and that after-acquired evidence of resume fraud can never serve as a bar or limitation on non-economic damages.  The second aspect of the decision clarifies that supervisors may be held personally liable for acts of discrimination only if they “actively and purposefully” assist the acts of discrimination. 

Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 28668 (3rd. Cir., March 27, 2007).

Courts should broadly construe the FMLA notice requirement when determining whether an employee provided sufficient notice in order to invoke the benefits and protections of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Moreover, a plaintiff need not present expert medical testimony in order to be considered disabled within the meaning of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). In Sarnowski, the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit revisited both issues and reversed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the employer as to both claims.

Dennis v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emples. Ret. Sys., 394 N.J. Super. 484 (App. Div., July 11, 2007).

There is some confusion as to what constitutes a “traumatic event” even among those from whom guidance is sought.  In Dennis, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled that the fact that an individual who causes an injury is of average size and strength is not a basis for finding that the incident causing the injury is not a “traumatic event.”

Raspa v. Office of the Sheriff of the County of Gloucester, 191 N.J. 323 (June 12, 2007).

An employee must possess the bona fide occupational qualifications for the job position that the employee seeks to occupy in order to trigger an employer’s obligation to reasonably accommodate the employee to the extent required by the Law Against Discrimination (LAD).  An Employer may reasonably limit light duty assignments to those employees whose disabilities are temporary.  The availability of light duty assignments for temporary disabled employees does not give rise to any additional duty on the part of the employer to assign a permanently disabled employee to an otherwise restricted light duty assignment.  In Raspa, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Appellate Division finding that, although broad, the goal of the LAD is to “eradicate the cancer of discrimination,” is not without boundary.  The court found that the LAD prohibits discrimination against any person due to any such disability or unlawful employment practice, unless the nature and extent of the disability reasonably prevents the performance of the employment.