NJ Supreme Courtroom: Staff’ Compensation Bar And Absence Of Antagonistic Employment Motion Not Deadly To Employee’s Cheap Lodging Declare Beneath New Jersey’s Legislation In opposition to Discrimination – Employment and HR

United States:

New Jersey Supreme Court: Workers Compensation Chamber and the absence of prejudicial employment measures not fatal to a worker’s right to adequate housing under New Jersey Discrimination Act

July 06, 2021

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP

To print this article, all you need to do is register or log in to Mondaq.com.

On June 15, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Judges v Oakland Board of Education (A-23-19) (083273) that an employee accused her employer of improper disability under New Discrimination Act Jersey (LAD.)) Did not have to first file an adverse employment measure – such as a demotion or dismissal – in order for their appeal to proceed. The court also found that an employee’s right to reasonable accommodation is not excluded by the “exclusive remedy” of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) when the employee has received back employee compensation benefits.

This decision may seem surprising to employers, but it was expected by many in the legal world. The judge’s decision underscores the importance of employers to establish and implement a thorough and consistent reasonable precautionary process to avoid liability under New Jersey law.

CASE ANALYSIS

In Richter, the clerk / plaintiff, a teacher, had a disability that ultimately resulted in her passing out and falling in a classroom, resulting in serious and permanent injuries. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her employer, claiming that the employer did not take into account her disability prior to the attachment – although she was asked to do so by the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff asked her employer to schedule her lunch break 90 minutes earlier so that she could maintain an appropriate blood sugar level. The employer did not accept her for the first grading period of the school year, adjusted her timetable for the second grading period, but did not adjust her timetable for the third grading period. Shortly before her scheduled lunch break, the plaintiff suffered a seizure in her classroom with serious injuries.

The plaintiff filed an industrial accident claim for the work-related injuries and received the cost of her medical bills and disability benefits. She later filed a lawsuit under the LAD, claiming that her employer failed to consider her disability, which led to her injuries. Her employer requested that the placement proceedings be dismissed on separate request, claiming that: (1) the plaintiff had failed to appear to fail to meet the LAD claim because she had not suffered adverse labor action; and (2) Plaintiff’s right to bodily harm was excluded by the WCA’s exclusive remedies provision. Both matters reached the New Jersey Supreme Court on appeal, which dismissed the employer’s arguments on both issues and ordered the proceedings to continue.

Regarding the failure to consider the claim, the court reasoned that a labor law countermeasure is not a required element, as is the case with other claims under the LAD, as the refusal process is fully fulfilled by the employer fulfilling its duty to adequately adjust does not comply. The court rejected the WCA’s exclusive appeal argument, stating that the WCA and LAD bylaws can be cumulative and complementary and prevent double recovery.

TAKEAWAYS

The New Jersey Supreme Court in Judges makes it clear that employers who fail to adequately accommodate an employee are potentially liable for damages under the LAD – whether or not such failure also results in a separate prejudicial measure by the employer. The decision not to take adequate account of oneself is sufficient to justify liability under the LAD. The court also clarifies that an employee’s compensation for physical damage can be offset under the WCA, but cannot rule out a LAD action for damages awarded to the employee under the WCA.

The judge’s decision should remind employers to design and implement placement policies and processes, including appropriate training for managers, that comply with legal requirements and considerations of New Jersey law. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Determine if the individual is covered under state (and federal) disability laws. Applicants can be covered as well as employees who have been mistakenly classified as independent contractors.
• Implementation of a consistent, repeatable procedure for legally compliant handling of the “interactive process”.
• Establish an independent review process to determine whether reasonable accommodation is possible and how the accommodation should be.

The judge’s ruling also reminds that labor and labor law is constantly changing and employers may need to seek legal advice on these issues.

The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance on the subject. You should seek expert advice regarding your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Employment and Workers

Remote worker: challenges in tax and labor law

Potomac Law Group

With safety restrictions now lifted as the COVID-19 vaccine becomes readily available and the percentage of the US population vaccinated increases, it is time for many employers to …

Check the restrictive agreement of the employment contract

Pavia & Harcourt

A recent New York District Court ruling in Flatiron Health, Inc. v. Carson found that an employer’s restrictions on a former employee were unenforceable.