Articles Posted in Disability Discrimination

When you are seeking an employment accommodation in New Jersey based on your disability, it is very important to have a knowledgeable New Jersey disability discrimination attorney on your side. There are several things that your employer must do during this process and, if it doesn’t (or if it doesn’t do so in good faith,) then that may be a very important cog in your Law Against Discrimination lawsuit. An experienced attorney can spot these issues for you and help you use them to your maximum benefit.

A recent case from Hunterdon County shows what an example of a lack of good faith by an employer might look like. V.L. was a woman with depression and anxiety. V.L. worked at a Hunterdon County health care organization from 1996 to 2015.

During her employment, V.L. had requested several accommodations for her depression and anxiety, which the employer had approved. At the end of an approved 12-week leave of absence, the employee met with her doctor, as well as a physician’s assistant who worked for the employer, about her return to work. According to the P.A., the employer had already identified a replacement to fill V.L.’s job.

Continue reading

Sometimes, the facts in your disability discrimination case may seem to be unfavorable, or may seem to you to present an insurmountable hill to climb to reach a successful outcome. Don’t let those “difficult” facts scare you. It may turn out that what seems to you to spell doom is actually nota “deal-breaker” for your case. A skilled New Jersey discrimination attorney may know how to take those facts, difficult ones and all, and still guide your case to get you your day in court.

Check out this case. A.C. was an employee working for a major cable television provider. In 2013, three months after her divorce, A.C. sent a copy of her final divorce judgment to her employer’s human resources department. She also sent HR paperwork about her application to change her name and get a new Social Security.

According to A.C., she thought that was all she needed to do, and that HR would handle everything else the employer needed to do from there, including taking her (now ex-)husband off her employer-provided insurance. Two years later, the employer fired A.C. after 15 years on the job. The firing took place three weeks after A.C. returned to work from gallbladder surgery.

Continue reading

Succeeding in any kind of civil lawsuit, including a discrimination and/or harassment action, requires a careful understanding of the law and in-depth knowledge of the procedural rules. Often times, though, the difference between success and failure is the factual evidence in your case. Whether it is getting your persuasive evidence in or keeping your opponents’ damaging evidence out, winning these evidentiary battles can frequently be the key to a favorable outcome and are just one more (of the many) reasons why you need to have a skilled New Jersey employment attorney advocating for you.

A recent case involving a sheriff’s department employee was an example of exactly this. J.I. had diabetes, having been diagnosed with Type I at the age of six. Twelve years into his employment, J.I. underwent a pancreas transplant due to his diabetes. After that procedure, J.I. allegedly endured a long string of taunts and insults. The disparaging nicknames included “Half-Dead,” “Mr. Magoo,” “Stevie Wonder,” “Jerry’s Kids,” “Eye Lab,” and “Walking Dead,” according to the employee. All of these taunts about his condition created a hostile work environment, so the employee sued in 2015.

At the trial, the county wanted to introduce evidence about a disciplinary case against J.I. and his partner, in which J.I. was suspended for misconduct and for untruthfulness. The county wanted to argue that J.I.’s displeasure about that internal affairs investigation was the real reason he sued. The employee, however, successfully persuaded the judge that the evidence would do more to create unfair prejudice than it would shine a light on deciding an issue that was before the jury.

In some workplaces, employers may be very hesitant to fire employees. Sometimes, the employer may try to goad certain employees into resigning by making the job so unpleasant or unsatisfying that the employee quits. These employers hope that, by securing a resignation as opposed to issuing a termination, they’re dodging certain types of legal exposure, including liability for employment discrimination or harassment.

However, just because you resigned your job as opposed to being fired, that doesn’t automatically mean that you cannot win a discrimination case using the circumstances of your exit as the required “adverse employment action.” Sometimes, an employment setting may be so horrible that a reasonable person would see quitting as the right way forward. When that happens, that’s called a “constructive discharge,” and, as one recent case showed, it potentially can be just as effective in helping you win your discrimination case as if you’d been fired. To learn more about all the options you may have if you’ve suffered workplace discrimination, be sure to contact an experienced New Jersey employment discrimination attorney about your situation.

What does constructive discharge look like? The U.S. Supreme Court said in 2004 that constructive discharge occurs when the employees has proof that “the abusive working environment became so intolerable that … resignation qualified as a fitting response.”

It is a general rule of the law that, if you have a disability (or a perceived disability) and your employer imposes an adverse employment action against you (such as termination, demotion, reduction in pay, reduction in hours, reassignment of duties, etc.) because of that disability, then you can pursue a disability discrimination action.

However, what if your employer never inflicted any of those things against you? Does the absence of that fact mean that you are “out of luck” when it comes to seeking much-needed compensation for disability discrimination? According to a recent Appellate Division ruling, the answer is “no.” This important employee victory in court is a reminder that, if you think you’ve been harmed on the job due to your disability, you should always take the time to contact an experienced New Jersey employment attorney and discuss the options that may exist for you.

In that recent case, M.R. was a middle school teacher in a school district in Bergen County who had Type I diabetes. During the 2012-13 school year, her schedule called for her to take lunch starting at 1:05 pm. The teacher believed that, due to the drugs she took for her diabetes, eating lunch that late could negatively affect her blood sugar levels.

In a lot of law blogs and other items that come from lawyers and law firms, you’ll probably hear the admonition, “Any time you are signing any legal document, be sure that you understand everything on that document before you put a pen on the paper,” or words to that effect. This warning comes up a lot because it is very good, and very important, advice. Almost any document has certain provisions and clauses that potentially could impact your rights or legal options later. Being sure you know before you sign is one way to avoid getting subsequently caught in a trap. If you are at all unsure about a document your employer is asking you to sign, reach out to a knowledgeable New Jersey employment attorney.

What do we mean by “trapped” later? Here’s a case from Passaic County that’s an example. G.M. worked for the county. G.M. had very severe arthritis. She took strong medications that worked as immunity suppressants, which meant that the employee was at an increased risk of suffering infections due to the drugs’ suppression of her immune system’s natural responses in fighting those infections.

At one point during her employment, G.M. found it necessary to ask for a period of medical leave. She made the request and the employer granted it. As part of that process, though, the employer asked the worker to sign certain documents. One of the documents included a provision that stated that the employee was “unable to perform all essential functions required by [her] employer.” By signing the document, G.M. was acknowledging that this was true. She signed the paper.