NJ Supreme Court Addresses Employee’s “Failure to Accommodate” Claim under LAD and WCA
Jun 23, 2021 | Written by: | Share
In Richter v. Oakland Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided two major issues of first impression. First, an “adverse employment action” is not a required element of a failure to accommodate claim under the Law Against Discrimination. Second, employee claims for workplace bodily injuries are not subject to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers Compensation Act.
Factual Background
Plaintiff Mary Richter, a longtime diabetic and teacher, experienced a hypoglycemic event in a classroom, which she claimed happened because her work schedule prevented her from eating her lunch early enough in the day to maintain proper blood sugar levels. She fainted, hit her head on a science laboratory table, and sustained serious and permanent life-altering injuries.
Although Richter recovered benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to – 146, she also pursued a claim under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, alleging that her employer failed to accommodate her pre-existing disability. According to Richter, in the months leading up to the incident, she repeatedly asked her school principal to change her schedule so that she could manage her blood sugar levels by having her lunch earlier in the day, but he failed to accommodate her request.
Does Failure to Accommodate Claim Require Adverse Employment Action?
The first issue the Court addressed is whether Richter was required to establish an adverse employment action (such as demotion, termination, etc.) to be able to proceed with an LAD failure-to-accommodate disability claim. The Court held that an adverse employment action is not a required element for this type of claim.
The Court noted that in Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383 (2010) and Royster v. State Police, 227 N.J. 482 (2017), it touched upon this issue in dicta but did not expressly hold that an adverse employment action is not an element of an LAD claim for failure to accommodate. The Court found that the time had come to “close the debate” on the elements of this claim. The Court found that the wrongful act for purposes of a failure-to-accommodate claim is the employer’s failure to perform its duty, not a further adverse employment action that the employee must suffer. To hold otherwise would permit employers to escape their accommodation obligations simply by declining to fire or demote an employee. Such an approach would render the accommodation requirement unenforceable and run contrary to the purposes of the LAD. Thus, the Court held that an employer’s inaction, silence or inadequate response to a reasonable accommodation request is an omission that can give rise to a cause of action, and the employee’s claim is not dependent on proving an adverse employment action.
Is Failure to Accommodate Claim Barred by WCA’s Exclusive Remedy Provision?
The second issue the Court addressed was whether LAD claims filed by an employee against an employer for workplace bodily injuries are subject to the exclusive remedy provisions of the WCA. The Court noted that this case pits a statutory (as opposed to common law) claim against the WCA exclusivity bar. The defendants argued that the Legislature did not intend to permit overlapping relief under the WCA and LAD. Thus, the WCA prevails and excludes any relief under an LAD claim for bodily injury, while permitting compensatory and punitive damages claims to proceed for LAD violations.
The Court rejected this argument, noting that the WCA was in place when the LAD was enacted, and the Legislature stated its clear intent that the LAD should be treated as supplemental to other remedies. Thus, the Court held that the WCA’s exclusive remedy provision did not attach to Richter’s claim. The statutes can function cumulatively and harmoniously. The Court noted that the statutory schemes operate to prevent double recovery through the application of a worker’s compensation lien. With double recovery averted, there is no possible conflict.
Kelly A. Lichtenstein, Esq. is an associate with Gebhardt & Kiefer, PC, and practices primarily in the areas of employment law, civil rights, and civil litigation.
If you have a suggestion for a future blog topic, please feel free to submit it via the Contact Us form.
Any statements made herein are solely for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.